online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
31.May 2005 - 16:42
Dear Sir / Madam
I am a Cornishman and I would be most gratefully for your aide in a question that puzzles many Cornish folk.
The question is a basic one and that is:
What is Cornwall?
Is it a county of England, a county of the UK (but not England) a Duchy or a combination of all of these.
It is still common for Cornish folk to refer to Cornwall as a Duchy, are they misguided and if so should they be informed of their mistake and told once and for all that Cornwall is just a County?
Please could you answer my question taking into consideration the following facts.
1) This definition of county in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044.
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.
This would seem to indicate that Cornwall was a Duchy, a county but not part of England.
2) The Duchy charters which are still law turned all of Cornwall into a Duchy.
3) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:
In the 19th century the legal arguments of Sir George Harrison, Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall, defeat the Crown's aspirations of sovereignty of the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy that Cornwall argues the Duke has sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown. During the same case, Parliament defines the Cornish as "aborigines".
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.
That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This legal case again would suggest that Cornwall (the county) is a Duchy.
4) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:
In 1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall - official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position.
I believe the report said a Duchy in England however.
5) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:
In 1863 the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirms that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king.
6) Taken form Cornwall County Councils website:
In 1889 (1st April) Cornwall County Council is created by the Local Government Act of 1888.
This act however does not do away with the Duchy or state if Cornwall is a county of England.
As you can see there is much information that contradicts the common perception of Cornwall as a county of England and goes some way to support the opinion of many Cornish folk that Cornwall is in some way different.
I look forward to your help in the clarification of this subject
Many Regards
CC to Oxford University Press, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Duchy of Cornwall and the UK home office.
enquiries@cornwall.gov.uk
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
The Duchy of Cornwall
10 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6L
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Jul 06, 2008 - 07:07 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
Posts: 10
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 01:13
The Cornish debate will always be there - though our ozone layer will not.
Posts: 1322
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 10:33
Couldn't agree more.
Posts: 928
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 16:19
Of course not, CCC is over-manned and like all local and national government it wastes huge sums of our money (e.g. £100k to put up four bollards in St Ives, the bottled water fiasco etc., etc., etc.). Their time and our money would be much better spent addressing people's genuine concerns and interests, and if one or two people there actually spent a day or two pinning down Cornwall's constitutional position once and for all, we'd have an answer (at long last) and they could go back to saving the planet.
Posts: 172
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 16:55
Posts: 1322
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 17:27
Not half as much money as would be wasted if we had an ASSembly.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 21:37
Your enquiry to Oxford University Press has been forwarded to me at Ask Oxford. We are experts in English language usage, not in constitutional law, and therefore cannot make any sort of authoritative pronouncement.
Since there is a county council in Cornwall, but the Duchy still exists as a legal entity, I conclude that Cornwall must in some respects be both a county and a duchy. The OED entry for 'duchy' notes that the term is used of two ancient dukedoms held by the Royal Family - Cornwall and Lancaster - 'having certain courts of their own, in which respect they differ from ordinary peerage dukedoms'. To the extent that the Duke of Cornwall no longer has sole feudal rights over the territory, the designation of 'Duchy' for the geographical area of Cornwall may in some degree be a historic or honorific title rather than a strict designation of administrative status. The title of 'Principality' is still given to Wales because of its historic associations, despite the lack of any governing role for the Prince of Wales. I would have thought that the legal statements alluded to do not remove Cornwall from England, since the interest and dominion of the English Crown is vested in the Duke of Cornwall, not ceded to him.
The term 'county' was until recently applied to a set of geographical and administrative units into which England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were each divided. Many of these are no longer administrative units, but the name is still applied to the geographical areas. The comment quoted from the OED entry merely notes that Cornwall was not, under the Anglo-Saxon system of local law, administered as a 'shire', but did nevertheless come to be called 'county' in modern English. It was incorporated into the nationwide system of county administration, and though its status is undeniably different from other counties, I see no reason to suppose that it is not a county of England. Anomalies abound in English governance, which has resulted in various kinds of curious status, either historical or continuing, for other districts such as the Royal Forests, the Soke of Peterborough, the County Palatine of Durham, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Isle of Wight. The notion that a 'county of the UK' might exist separate from the constituent nations seems improbable: Cornwall has surely been treated as part of England since the unification of that country under the Saxon kings.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 21:46
I am harassing no one.
I worked with autistic people in Cornwall and for two years i worked with people who had a history of homelessness, drug and mental health problems. I also try to recycle as much as possible and do write about environmental issues.
I try to make a difference, and you two?
If you are saying this subject does not interest you fair enough but why then suggest i cannot possible be concerned about humanitarian issues and have my priorities wrong, seems a bit like a petty attack really.
I wish that were the case however with learning French, generally integrating to life in France and doing a Teacher training course i find Little time for writing such letters but i still manage.
Posts: 172
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 22:43
So are you French or Cornish?
Posts: 90
Posted:
1.Jun 2005 - 23:24
Possibly a Cornishman living in France, is that to difficult a concept.
Speaking for myself; thank you for finding the time Fulub
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
2.Jun 2005 - 15:56
The council have responded via the records office
Thank you for your enquiry.
Record Office Staff are not in a position to offer legal advice, so I regret that we are unable to assist you with your query. I see that you have also contacted the Duchy of Cornwall and the Home Office: as they are better placed to answer your question, I suggest that you await their response.
Yours sincerely,
Archivist
Cornwall Record Office
Sounds evasive to me and i was not really asking for legal advice just what, in the opinion of the Council, Cornwall is. Surely CCC has an opinion as to what Cornwall is?
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
2.Jun 2005 - 21:16
The Duchy of Cornwall
10 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6L
I think they owe us a few explinations at least.
Posts: 346
Posted:
2.Jun 2005 - 22:51
I tried asking the Earl of Wessex's equerry for an official definition of Wessex once. He never replied.
Unregistered User
Posted:
3.Jun 2005 - 16:48
In 1337, previous to the ‘infamous charters, the County (aka Comitatus or Earldom) was created forever to remain as a Duchy to the eldest son of the reigning monarch. Within this title there existed the administration and government of the territory (aka vicecomitatus or shreivalty) – therefore two entirely different entities but territorially the same (qv. make up of kingdoms et al.)
,
At the time of creation the people of Cornwall were the subjects of the Duke. By what constitutional means would it be legitimate to say “no longer�?
The point that is always being avoided is the fact that Cornwall is not and never has been “in England�. If the presumption is to the contrary, then please give details of when this momentous constitutional event took place!
The same comment here as above. Please give another instance of an anomalous non-English 'British' territory being subsumed by imperial arrogance and ignorance.
That is precisely what is at the root of the Cornish Paradox. If Cornwall is to be considered an administrative division of anywhere, it rightfully belongs to the Cornish Nation – the oldest named nation of this island.
This is simply not true! Cornwall has been a dominion territory of the English [& British] Crown but its medieval distinction from England, and the Crown, is enshrined in law and constitution with the ‘restoration’ of the Dukedom in 1337
TGG: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kernow_tgg soon to become www.kernowtgg.co.uk
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
3.Jun 2005 - 16:58
TGG i would like to respond to the OUP, please may i use your information above.
FLB
Unregistered User
Posted:
3.Jun 2005 - 17:25
Feel free to use the info as best you can
TGG
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
4.Jun 2005 - 10:46
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
2.Jul 2005 - 12:06
http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/
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 bad been enjoyed by the Earls.
4th. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending its creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm the natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls had enjoyed, but also afford evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.
And lastly. That the Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.
Duchy of Cornwall,
Somerset House,
May, 1855.
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:45 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
19.Jul 2005 - 10:05
As for the Duchy they responded and wrote that the person who could give me an answer was of sick until July! Time to try again.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
23.Aug 2005 - 14:44
I wont provide a full copy but just the main points.
1) Cornwall is a county of England.
2) The Duchy and the County are not one and the same. many Duchy lands are outside Cornwall.
3) The Duchy does have a more general relationship to the county ie it appoints the Sherif of Cornwall and has the right of advowson (presentation of incumbents).
4) The Duchy was probably founded for military reasons. At a time of increasing hostility with the French relm, Edward III created the Duchy inorder to protect a remote part of the English relm. Foundation charter "lands subjet to our dominion may be more securely and fitly defended against the attacks of our enemies and adversaries".
5) Edward III also created the Duchy in recognition of the fact that Cornwall was one of the "remarkable places of our Kingdom".
Thats a recap of the Duchy response, a response that does not address one single example that i put in my first letter such as the Cornish foreshore case, the Kilbrandon Report or other Duchy statements about its own nature.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
26.Aug 2005 - 11:14
Posts: 1104
Posted:
29.Aug 2005 - 14:26
Congratulations on getting ‘something’ out of the Duchy – even if it only restates the official propaganda. The interesting aspect of this reply from 'them' is that it treads new ground by offering some opinion over the 'creation'. But beware the insidious English half-truth which superficially seems credible but used, invariably, to hide a deeper truth. The following are some of the thoughts that just popped into the head:
As a dominion territory of the English Crown, in 1337, the ambiguity between of England (the Realm) and of England (the Country) is a half-truth which demands definition whenever the term ‘England’ is used. A similar situation exists today between the misuse, and contrived synonymity, of England and Britain. Likewise, references to the Tamar Border as a county boundary with Devonshire rather than a national border with England!
Whilst a dominion territory of England (Realm), Cornwall is not, and never has been, of England (Country). Therefore, if the Duchy comment is meant to be of England (Realm), then surely this would have been superceded, by the progression to the current Realm of the United Kingdom, to be a county of Britain (or United Kingdom)?
150 years ago, the Duchy proved that it was the County (Earldom/Comitatus) of Cornwall that had been erected into a Duchy and showed that it was distinct from the Crown and England. Within this creation we find that the civil government of Cornwall (vicecomitatus) was annexed forever to the Duchy. Surely, therefore, this civil government is clearly defined de jure as being in, and of, the Duchy of Cornwall – not England!
We are faced once again with another insidious English half-truth. What, in fact, is meant here by “the County�? If we think in terms of territory, then the comment above is completely and mischievously incorrect. It was the Earldom (County) of Corwall which was to become the Dukedom. If, on the other hand, we construe it to be (as, I am sure, intended?) the civil administration, then we see from my above comment that this – like the estates – forms only a part of the whole and the mischievous reference to “Duchy lands� is a red-herring to direct you away from the truth.
This wilfully, even criminally, understates the truth and implies that the Duchy is some distant entity – on Mars, perhaps? - whereas in truth the Duchy is specifically Cornwall as mentioned above. For example, all revenue from Cornwall, when an Earl or Duke was in existence, ceased to be answered to the Crown. The form of political chicanery that has changed that status has yet to be exposed!
The whole concept of Royal Patronage in the 14th century was geared towards rewarding loyalty and ensuring ongoing support in that bloody period of the English Empire. It was, therefore, not “probably� but a given. The quote offered to support this supposition has an even greater significance, however, in that it reflects the perceived perception of Cornwall at that time. This contrived mystery of ‘why Cornwall’ was created a Dukedom becomes clear by intelligent reading of the associated documents of creation and investiture. With, of course, less of a closed mind on the facts of Cornish history.
We are left agog at what this quote refers to and from whence it came!:!: Is it, perhaps, an attempt to euphemise a following comment in the charter preamble, referred to above, which states: “desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honors�. Consider this statement, also, within the context of the the Duchy as being, allegedly, only the private estates (sic)
I can only say: find the truth at www.kernowtgg.co.uk
TGG
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
8.Sep 2005 - 11:02
The Department of Constitutional Affairs
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Selborne House
54 Victoria Street
London SW1 6QW
general.queries@dca.gsi.gov.uk
have responded and said that this question as to the constitutional nature of Cornwall "falls outside their remit"?
This department in its letter head has the words Justice, rights and democracy!?
I will be contacting them shortly to as why they cannot answer, why it fall outside there remit.
They kindly forwarded my question to the:
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Customer Liaison Unit
Zone 3/B4 Eland House
Bressenden Place
Victoria
SW1E 5DU
I will send my question again to the ODPM
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:46 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
Posts: 928
Posted:
8.Sep 2005 - 14:42
Eh? Do we count as "Customers" of the Government now? That's worse than my PhD supervisor calling university students "customers".
The government should be careful of calling us customers, customers have statutory rights, and if we aren't getting satisfactory service for our money we can ask for a refund...maybe 10p/l on unleaded and any above-inflation council tax rises?
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
9.Sep 2005 - 18:18
Well i think that's the point, if you are Cornish and want to know about the constitutional status of Cornwall you are not seen as a customer you're more seen as an undesirable homeless person who has wandered into the shop and who is most definitely not welcome.
Of course if a rich tax exile walks into the shop from Guernsey and wants to buy half a pound of constitutional particularism..............
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
22.Sep 2005 - 12:18
Ministerial correspondence Unit
7th floor
Selborne house
54 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
general.queries@dca.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Mr Breton
Thank you for your letter blah blah.........
I can confirm that, in as far as constitutional issues are concerned, Cornwall is covered in the same way as every other county within England, by the DCA.
However your initial question was "What is Cornwall". This is not something that falls within the remit of the DCA to answer.
Your letter has been forwarded to the Government Office of the South West.
So from this response i understand that the DCA treats Cornwall as an English county however they cannot tell me if Cornwall is part of the country of England or if it is even a county.
They assume it is an English county and cannot or will not address the evidence that contradicts this assumption, such as the foreshore case.
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:46 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
Posts: 928
Posted:
22.Sep 2005 - 12:44
They are frightened that if the truth about Cornwall's legal level of independence from the English State were known, there would be hell up that Cornwall's legal rights weren't being up held by the Westminster parliament, and rightly so.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
22.Sep 2005 - 16:10
This is what we have to ensure does not happen!
Posts: 2305
Posted:
22.Sep 2005 - 23:14
NO THEY DO NOT!!
They file it on a list of "important things to do". Granting Cornwall independance comes in at number 327625, just after number 327624; "revive trade links with Burkini Faso."
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
23.Sep 2005 - 16:14
Yes they do!
They find it easier to avoid answering certain questions so that's what they do.
You would think i could address some part of the government of the UK and get a straight answer concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall that takes into account all the evidence provided.
Surely my government should be able to provide an answer that is credible as opposed to avoiding direct answers and passing the buck continuously. Is that the kind of government you want stroppy?
If the UK government wants to convince me that Cornwall is a county of England then they are going to have to address the foreshore case where Cornwall was described as a Duchy and apart from the country of England.
This was case law and should have set the precedent for the treatment of Cornish constitutional affairs but it did not, why?
Posts: 1104
Posted:
23.Sep 2005 - 16:55
It will become even more than that, Fulub, when the proposed book on Cornish Law is published - latest info suggests 2006. However, as with all things, it will need some real dedication to pick it up and run with it.
Given the 'obviously' stalling tactics of the English Imperial State and its agencies, fifth-column and quislings - and, sadly, a generally tutored ignorance about our Cornish Duchy by the EIS - it may well provide an impetus to more legally direct action but will not provide the funds necessary to take the Imperialist mentality to an International court.
If, indeed, our view of Cornwall is so wrong (sic), why has the establishment not come out - years ago - and substantively repudiated the Cornish arguments, rather than just dismissively ignoring the fact that we even exist. ? Because.... as over the centuries, we are not considered to be a threat to the inertia of English Imperialism.
Posts: 346
Posted:
23.Sep 2005 - 22:08
http://www.inst...boundary.pdf
Posts: 2305
Posted:
24.Sep 2005 - 00:07
Posts: 694
Posted:
24.Sep 2005 - 12:22
Posts: 705
Posted:
24.Sep 2005 - 20:50
Posts: 2305
Posted:
25.Sep 2005 - 04:50
But the lack of humour in the MK crowd isn't a vote winner as far as I can see.
Posts: 694
Posted:
25.Sep 2005 - 10:16
Posts: 5
Posted:
25.Sep 2005 - 18:33
Being as I'm a right mongrel (brought up in Ireland lived 'alf me life in Cornwall and
ended up here in Vienna) you'd be of the proud Cornish fraternity not to give me a
look-in, but hey, even every dog has his day
I loved Cornwall and the real Cornish friends I made there. I reckon the whole project
of figuring out a proud identity and giving the proper Cornish folks there their hearts-
desire...a place in their own history is rightful!
Viva Cornwall and all who sail in her, that's what I say.
Laters lads,
Posts: 5
Posted:
25.Sep 2005 - 18:41
We can get back to the proper subject matter after that momentary interlude,
Slainte,
Posts: 2305
Posted:
28.Sep 2005 - 09:29
Hey, don't throw mud and expect not to get some thrown back at you...
How do you know it's unintentional?
Posts: 5
Posted:
28.Sep 2005 - 10:30
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
28.Sep 2005 - 16:21
1) This definition of county in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044.
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.
This would seem to indicate that Cornwall was a Duchy, a county but not part of England.
2) The Duchy charters which are still law turned all of Cornwall into a Duchy.
3) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:
In the 19th century the legal arguments of Sir George Harrison, Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall, defeat the Crown's aspirations of sovereignty of the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy that Cornwall argues the Duke has sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown. During the same case, Parliament defines the Cornish as "aborigines".
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.
That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This legal case again would suggest that Cornwall (the county) is a Duchy.
4) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:
In 1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall - official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position.
I believe the report said a Duchy in England however.
5) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:
In 1863 the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirms that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king.
6) Taken form Cornwall County Councils website:
In 1889 (1st April) Cornwall County Council is created by the Local Government Act of 1888.
This act however does not do away with the Duchy or state if Cornwall is a county of England.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
12.Oct 2005 - 19:59
Again they have completely failed to address any of the evidence that contradicts there assumption that Cornwall is just an English county. I will write back to point this out and lodge a formal complaint aimed at their failings, their lack of ability to provide a definitive answer that I, as a citizen of the UK (and a Cornishman), have a right to.
Democracy and Local Government Division
5/F8 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Tel: 020 7944 4109
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/homepage/odpm_home_page.hcsp
You will appreciate that i cannot provide an authoritative interpretation of the law, which is a matter for the courts, but i hope nevertheless that the following informal comments are helpful.
for the purposes of government- both national and local- Cornwall is treated as an administrative and ceremonial county of England. Local people in Cornwall elect MP's to the UK Parliament and pay taxes to the British Exchequer. Equally laws passed for England are deemed to take effect, and are enforced in Cornwall.
the Duchy of Cornwall is an entirely separate issue. Since its creation during the 14th century the Duchy of Cornwall's main purpose has been to provide an independent income for the heir to the throne. It is one of the largest landed estates In Britain, and owns approximately around 54,850 hectares in 20 counties, mainly in the South West of England, but not exclusively in Cornwall. In fact, the majority of the estates lies elsewhere.
I do appreciate that this is not perhaps the definitive answer that you are seeking, but i hope nevertheless that it is helpful in some way.
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:44 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
14.Oct 2005 - 14:25
5/F8 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Tel: 020 7944 4109
http://www.odpm.gov.uk
Policy Advisor
Dear Jobs worth
Thank you for your letter dated the 6th of October 2005, your ref: DGL 20/1/3.
Your response and time are much appreciated however all you have done is repeat the same formulaic answer that provides no clarity on the subject of the constitutional status of Cornwall what so ever.
If as you say for national and local purposes Cornwall is treated as a Ceremonial and Administrative county of England and that the Duchy of Cornwall is a separate issue then why:
1) Do the duchy Charters that are still law today talk about the whole of Cornwall being augmented into a Duchy?
2) 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.
1. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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) 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.
Cornwall County Council, The Duchy of Cornwall and the DCA have not been able to provide an answer that takes into account these facts and now it seems your department is doing the same. You are content to describe Cornwall as an English county even when presented with much evidence to the contrary. You are content to repeat the same response that is clearly an attempt to fob me off as opposed to give a reasonable researched answer.
This is a terrible reflection on a government that would like to be seen at home and abroad as democratic, honest, transparent, just and accessible to its citizens. I am a citizen of the UK (and a Cornishman) and I deserve and demand a comprehensive answer to my question as to the constitutional status of Cornwall that takes into account all the evidence.
Therefore I would like to log a formal complaint against you and your department because of your failure to provide a definitive answer; please can you send me information on your complaints procedure.
I look forward to your reply please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail if you should need any further information.
Yours sincerely
FLB
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:44 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
Posts: 375
Posted:
14.Oct 2005 - 21:36
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
15.Oct 2005 - 13:58
Yes after all i could do something far more constructive like bum around websites making childish comments completely lost in the value of my own sense of humour.
Is your time of such little value to you?
Oh well at least its good to see the youth of today using the Internet.
Anyway another letter from the DCA: http://www.dca.gov.uk/
I am sorry that you found Mrs .......... letter unhelpful. For clarity, the matters you raise are not the responsibility of this department. Whilst we do indeed deal with Constitutional issues i.e. devolution, crown dependency and royal and hereditary, it is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Priminister to determine - for the purposes of government - the 'status' of Cornwall. As such, i understand Cornwall is treated as an administrative and ceremonial county of England. The local people in Cornwall will elect Members of Parliament to the United Kingdom Parliament and will pay taxes to the British Exchequer. Equally, laws passed for England are deemed to take effect, and are enforced, in Cornwall.
In so far as the documentation that you enclosed with your correspondence is concerned, as this is not a matter for the DCA i can only suggest you contact the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for further interpretation of the law as it stands. the alternative would be for you to challenge the legal status of Cornwall through the Courts.
So there you have it the governmental office for constitutional affairs cannot answer the question "What is Cornwall" taking into account all the evidence. In fact if i want just an answer, just some clarity i am advised to take my own government to court.
What sort of state is this?
PS the enclosed document referred to by the DCA was a photo copy of the article from the autumn Cornish World examining Cornish history and the Cornish constitution.
Posts: 733
Posted:
15.Oct 2005 - 14:16
If everyone had your childish apathetic opinions in Kernow, nothing would get done and Kernow would fall into the oblivion of an English South West region. Luckily most of the Kernewek have not fallen into the good old Kernewek disease of apathy which had a tight grip on most of Kernow once and now we are getting things done for the good of Kernow. If you really care about Kernow, do something for her, not go on message boards and slag off the people who are.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
19.Oct 2005 - 20:02
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:42 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
Posts: 38
Posted:
26.Oct 2005 - 00:17
Posts: 2538
Posted:
26.Oct 2005 - 00:37
probably the foremost references are the Cornish Stannary Parliament and the Tyr-Gwyr-Gweryn sites:
http://www.cornish-stannary-parliament.abelgratis.com/
and
http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/index.html
Oll an Gwella
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
27.Oct 2005 - 19:52
What does anybody know? Why and when are they going to do it?
Posts: 38
Posted:
29.Oct 2005 - 04:24
Perhaps it's to follow the lead of "English Heritage" (GOD I HATE THAT NAME!!!) who are raising an order in Council to change their name to "Natural England". Just fine for anywhere over the border
Posts: 38
Posted:
30.Oct 2005 - 13:26
The only problem is that the DOC is not answerable (exempt is their wording) to the Freedom of Information act and your democratically elected local MP is not allowed to ask questions of the Duke or the Duchy in the House of Commons.
(Barry Winetrobe, secretary to the House of Commons library).
The DOC (as a private estate? [I don't think so]) has over 105 Acts of Parliament and Statutes to support anything they wish to do in Kernow. to the detriment of the indigenous Cornish poulation.
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
31.Oct 2005 - 16:02
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 10:32
The Duchy wrote back saying that the Duchy and the County of Cornwall are two different things, the Duchy being a private property company. They however at no time tried to address the facts provided. I wrote back thanking them for their responses but asking that they address the points raised, i still await their response.
The DCA wrote back saying that they treat Cornwall as a ceremonial and administrative county of England for the purposes of their office but that the points i raised where outside their remit to address. they forwarded me to the office of the deputy priminister local government division.
At one point they also suggested i take the government to court if i wanted to change the legal status of Cornwall, something i never even hinted at doing, i just want to know the true status of Cornwall.
ODPM said they treat Cornwall as a ceremonial and administrative county of England for the purposes of their office but the points i raised were outside the remit of their office, they referred me to the DCA.
Do you see where this is going? So that's it, this is the reality of the UK government when questions are too tricky to answer in a reasonable way they simple choose not to answer them. There is only transparency and openness when it suits them. This is an important lesson for us all to learn not just people in the Cornish movement but all UK citizens!
I really don't know where to go from here accept demanding a different department to communicate with or forwarding all the correspondence to NGO's responsible for monitoring governmental transparency; bodies in Europe spring to mind.
latest letter from me in response to the farce described above:
Policy Advisor
20th of November 2005
Dear..................
Thank you for your letter dated the 11th of November 2005, your ref:...............
I would like to start by apologising to you, I believe in my last letter I made a complaint against you in person. I would like for it to go on record that I retract this complaint without reservation, I understand that you are acting in the only way your department will allow.
However my formal complaint against the ODPM democracy and local governance division stands and I would like this to go on record as a formal written complaint.
The reasons are as follows:
Neither your department, the Duchy of Cornwall or the DCA have been able to provide a description of the constitutional status of Cornwall in the United Kingdom that takes into account the historical / legal facts I have provided.
Both your department and the DCA have responded that for the purposes of your respective functions you treat Cornwall as a ceremonial and administrative county of England. However both of your departments have failed to responded to or even investigate the historical / legal facts that severely question the bases for this assumption.
When faced with these historical and legal facts the DCA referred me to you, it seems you are now referring me back to the DCA. When faced with the information that I have provided both your departments have claimed that I have raised questions that are outside the remit of your respective offices, if that is the case why have you referred me back to the DCA and why did the DCA refer me to you in the first place?
Does anybody know who is responsible for answering this question in your department or is it that the government just does not want to answer such questions; because quite frankly that’s they way it appears?
So if neither your department, the DCA nor the Duchy can help me obtain a reasonable answer, who can? Which part of the United Kingdom government can provide an answer to one of its citizens that does address all the facts concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall?
Your department and the DCA have both denied responsibility for the question I have raised, you have both said that it lies outside your respective remits, but at no time have you provided me with the name and address of the governmental department that can answer my question, the department whose remit does cover my question.
I find it totally unacceptable that the ODPM and the DCA have failed to provide such a contact address and request that you do so in all haste.
Yours sincerely
F le Breton
CC to the DCA their ref:.....................
All correspondence to date have also been forwarded to the following: Council of Europe Secretariat - Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Federal Union of European Nationalities; EU Culture Commissioner; EU Human Rights Committee; EU Citizens Freedom, Rights and Justice Committee
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:42 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
Posts: 1405
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 10:47
I agree, have been thinking the same thing myself. OK, I removed the "God you boring idiots. " because I don't have a problem with people discussing the nature of Cornwall.
But what you're saying is true, you can discuss what Cornwall is until you go blue in the face meanwhile in the real world Cornwall has been bought up by the retired English middle classes turned into a theme park with all its original inhabitants having to dress up as pixies to make a living
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 11:25
Not sure what your point is really. As you know i fight on a number of fronts in the Cornish movement and i totally agree that economic and social changes need to be made in the Duchy in all urgency, that's why i support the assembly. In a wider sense that's why i vote left of centre.
Environmentally there are Cornish and global issues i pursue as well.
However this thread is about getting to the bottom of what seems to be a right royal scam!
The Duke gets all the benefits of being King of Cornwall but then can avoid all the responsibilities to the Cornish people, leaving the UK government a free hand to slowly stitch Cornwall into one of its cultural Frankenstein like creations see Devonwall or Westcountry, further denuding us of one of the facets of our cultural identity.
If we get up a head of steam and if we can prove and enforce the true status of Cornwall, then this will go a long way in stopping the cultural assimilation of the Cornish which is just as damaging as the economic and social conditions in my opinion.
After all what would Cornwall and the Cornish be if we did just become Englishmen in another English county/region, even if we did have better jobs?
Posts: 2538
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 11:42
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 17:26
So Chris, do you think i should stop asking these questions and do something else?
Posts: 2538
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 17:53
No, definitely not. Keep up the good work as things have never looked so good for underlying Cornish culture and self-determination.
It doesn't really matter who owns an icecream stall, etc, they have them in Torquay, Blackpool, Skegness - they're not Cornish, they're ubiquitous.
What matters are the things that make it Cornish - the language and visibility of it and the political uniqueness of Cornwall.
We have recognition of the language and money for it and a major political party supporting devolution. That's real progress. What needs to be done is to push these things forward at a higher pace.
Your contribution has been invaluable FLB in keeping things in the limelight - KEEP UP THE SPLENDID WORK - sod the naysayers
Posts: 135
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 18:25
Posts: 1405
Posted:
23.Nov 2005 - 20:26
No, you're all right!
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
25.Jan 2006 - 12:16
Why on Earth would I want to join in a navel-gazing excercise among a bunch of Cornish extremists, in which Fulup and his cronies fall back on the old conspiracy theory that a document, predating the first Duchy of Cornwall Charter, mysteriously went missing, but that it is known to have stated that the whole of Cornwall came under the Duchy, and that the Duchy was a nation separate from England. Does anyone else find it very strange that, when the Duchy Charters themselves appear shortly afterwards (in 1337), they seem to totally contradict the supposed wording of this (vanished) document? Fulup insists that where the word county appears in the Charters with reference to Cornwall, it doesnt actually mean county at all, but is a mistranslation of comitas, but when it refers to any other county, it does actually mean county. So what exactly does the word counties mean when it is used in the phrase in the counties of Cornwall and Devon? Are we expected to believe that it means comitas in the case of Cornwall but means county in the case of Devon?
If the reader is beginning to think that this is stretching credulity to its limit, then I can assure him/her that there is better to come. Much of the first Charter consists of lists of lands and estates, which are defined as constituting the Duchy. It lists lands in the counties of: Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey, Yorkshire and Middlesex. Surprisingly (as Fulub insists that the whole of Cornwall is Duchy land) it also lists the Duchy lands in Cornwall itself. Now if the whole of Cornwall is Duchy land, why would the Charter list the Duchy lands in Cornwall and not just state that the whole of Cornwall is Duchy land. Intriguingly, the listed lands in Cornwall amount to only a small fraction of the land area of the County of Cornwall, and are in total far smaller in area than the Duchy lands in Devon, which on their own amount to over half of the total Duchy lands. Many of you may be surprised to discover that even the Oval Cricket Ground in London is Duchy land.
Curiouser and curiouser you may think (with acknowledgements to Lewis Carroll), but surely Fulup could not be wrong about Cornwall being separate from England. Surely the Charters would state somewhere that Cornwall was separate from the Kingdom of England, wouldnt they. Well actually no they dont, and they actually state on a number of occasions that Cornwall is in the kingdom of England, on each occasion using the phrase:-
to succeed as Dukes of the same place, in the said kingdom of England
This can only mean one thing, i.e. that Cornwall is indeed in the kingdom of England. Maybe Fulup will rush in to inform us that kingdom of England is yet another unfortunate instance of a mistranslation. I wait with baited breath to hear Fulups explanation.
If anybody is interested in the history and definition of the Duchy of Cornwall, they will find the official version (as opposed to Fulups conspiracy theory) in the Summary on page 3 of the following document:-
Fulup asks 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?
To answer this, I would refer to Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 2902:-
The clauses of interest are those relating to 'Persons to be served with notice of intended application' and 'Persons to receive copy of application and documents'. In both cases, the recipients concerning 'works on the foreshore and riverbeds' in both Devon and Cornwall include The Duchy of Cornwall. In the explanatory notes, the required recipients are defined as 'bodies having statutory responsibilities in the particular areas of the prospective applicant's intention to make an application'.
The wording of this Statutory Instrument makes it abundantly obvious why the power of the Duchy comes into play with regard to the 1998 Tamar Bridge Act, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Duchy of Cornwall being the whole county. The 1998 Act was passed to enable extension work to be carried out on the Tamar Bridge, which links Devon and Cornwall over the River Tamar. As the foundations of the main towers of the suspension bridge are built into the riverbed of the Tamar, and all works on the foreshore and riverbeds in Devon and Cornwall, come under the statutory responsibility of the Duchy of Cornwall (as per the Statutory Instrument), it is not in the least bit surprising that the 1998 Act contained the aforementioned clause, to satisfy the legal requirements of the Statutory Instrument. It certainly does not mean that the Duchy is the whole of the County of Cornwall, because if it does, it also means that the Duchy includes the whole of the county of Devon as well.
Again I leave it to others posting on this thread to judge for themselves.
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:38 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
25.Jan 2006 - 17:51
Well in think that the contributor uses such language and fails to debate speaks volumes. You will note the insults and childish language are used to call me an "extremist".
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".
So you see the contributor my write of this claim of an original act of creation but further acts prove its existence and that is all that counts.
No I insist that rightly comitas can be translated to mean county today but it was also used to describe the community of people in an area the masses if you like hence the people of Devon or the people of Cornwall. What comitas does not indicate at this time is any further constitutional status. The meaning has changed over time and that the contributor fails to see this is telling.
At the time it was quite common for estates to be held outside Duchies, Earldoms etc by the temporal lord or ducal position. Take for instance Brittany; at the height of its independence from the Kingdom of France the Duke of Brittany held estates all over France and even in England all outside Brittany. This does not mean however that Brittany was not a Duchy. The Sultan of Brunei could for example buy large parts of the Scottish highlands but that would not make them Brunei or mean the sultanate did not exist.
Well the charters do annex the civil administration of the county of Cornwall to the Duchy and also speak of augmenting the Earldom/county into a Duchy for ever.
As to the Duchy being inside the Kingdom of England well yes I agree however Wales, parts of Ireland, Calais and other continental territories where all at one time part of the Kingdom of England however this does not make them English or part of the country of England. A distinction should be drawn between the country and Kingdom, when the kingdom was united with that of Scotland in the 18th century did that mean the country of England ceased to exist? Of course not!
The Tamar bridge act recognises that the Cornish foreshore and river beds are the responsibility of the Duchy. This responsibility was defended successfully in the 19th century by the attorney general of the Duchy who used the following argument, an argument that claims Cornwall is a Duchy.
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.
1. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Additionally why would so many maps before the 17 century clearly mark Cornwall out for special treatment? Please see this thread: http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-330.htm
Why where pre-Tudor laws often typically designated to take effect in Anglia et Cornubia (that is, in England and Cornwall) if Cornwall was just a county of England.
Why did Polydore Vergil, an Italian cleric commissioned by King Henry VII to write a history of England, states that "The whole country of Britain is divided into four parts, whereof the one is inhabited by Englishmen, the other of Scots, the third of Welshmen, the fourth of Cornish people ... and which all differ among themselves either in tongue, either in manners, or else in laws and ordinances."
Why did King Henry VIII's coronation procession includes "nine children of honour" representing "England and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland. All geographical regions but not the Duchy of Cornwall, why no child for Devon?
Why did the Italian diplomat Lodovico Falier (From the court of King Henry VIII) writes in a letter that "The language of the English, Welsh and Cornish men is so different that they do not understand each other". He also claims it is possible to distinguish the members of each group by alleged "national characteristics".
Why did the French ambassador in London, Gaspard de Coligny Chatillon, writing to his government indicates ethnic differences thus: "The kingdom of England is by no means a united whole, for it also contains Wales and Cornwall, natural enemies of the rest of England, and speaking a [different] language".
Following Queen Elizabeth I's death, why did the Venetian ambassador write that the "late queen had ruled over five different 'peoples': 'English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish ... and Irish'".
Why did Arthur Hopton (later ambassador to Madrid?) writes that "England is ... divided into three great Provinces, or Countries ... speaking a several and different language, as English, Welsh and Cornish".
Treaty of Bretigny John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou confirmed the aforesaid, and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaid. Why in this treaty is Cornwall mentioned if it is just a county of England and the title no more than an honorary one with a few landed estates? All the others where actual geographic region and titles of governance but not Cornwall!?
Lastly I am described as a crony, extremist and conspiracy theorist well does that mean that the Royal Kilbrandon report was also written by extremist Cornish nationalists because this report also suggested that the territory of Cornwall should be referred to as a Duchy in recognition of its constitutional position, admittedly in England but still a Duchy!
edited by: Fulub-le-Breton, Apr 15, 2007 - 02:41 PM
The Cornish Democrat
The Breton Connection
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
25.Jan 2006 - 17:54
Posts: 408
Posted:
25.Jan 2006 - 18:33
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
23.Feb 2006 - 16:01
After after a letter from the department of constitutional affairs saying they would nolonger respond to me and that the issue is the responsibility of the ODP (also contacted) i have heard nothing and i don't expect to either.
The Duchy has also failed to respond.
So this is the stone wall beyond which citizens cannot pass. This is where democracy, transparency, human rights and the governments responsibility to its citizens ends!
Posts: 2305
Posted:
24.Feb 2006 - 03:19
Or maybe they're just bored of rehashing ancient debates to no useful end?
online
Posts: 4385
Posted:
24.Feb 2006 - 12:51
If it is such an ancient and rehashed debate why can't they just provide a simple answer and be done with it?
Its not the place of the government, in my opinion, to ignore questions from it citizens that it doesn't like.
Posts: 272
Posted:
24.Feb 2006 - 23:11