Maps of Cornwall

[Angofbew]

Another thought. I think you will find the word Shire a much more reasonable indicator for the point you are trying to make. Of course Cornwall was never referred to as such, and in fact Cornwall had it's own Shires. e.g West Wievelshire (forgive the spelling)

[Ellery]

Pydarshire, Triggshire, Powdershire, etc...etc...

[Fulub-le-Breton]

Now thats better!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Real ... ingdom.png

[Fulub-le-Breton]

Fantastic map of Breizh to be bought, how about a map of Kernow like this!!!: http://www.geobreizh.com/breizh/fra/poster-grand.asp

Geobreizh: http://www.geobreizh.com/breizh/fra/poster.asp

[Fulub-le-Breton]

Wikipedia maps of Cornwall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_Cornwall

[Fulub-le-Breton]

West Wales: http://www.white431.adsl24.co.uk/British_isles_802.jpg

http://www.maparchive.org/details.php?i ... d7aac995fc

[Coady]

Oh, Fulub..Those last maps seem to show West Wales/Cornwall as an integral part of Wessex, was that how it was seen in 802 AD??
Graham.

[GoghiennVarow]

Those last maps seem to show West Wales/Cornwall as an integral part of Wessex, was that how it was seen in 802 AD??



Unlikely, considering (according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)Cornwall was not, "harried" by Egbert of Wessex until 814, and the Tamar boundary was not fixed until c.936 by Aethelstan, I suggest this map is more illustrative of the attitude of whoever drew it in the c.1950's than any remotely accurate historic political reality.

[Fulub-le-Breton]

Doubt it Coady, just another map to add to the thread.

[Coady]

Thanks GV and FLB. saved me researching!!

Graham.

[Fulub-le-Breton]

The thing to take away Coady is that all these maps point to there being something different and particular about the history of Cornwall, something decidedly "non-English shire".

The question then has to be asked why is it that we had to find all this out ourselves? Why is it not covered in schools?

[CJenkin]

Coady said:
Oh, Fulub..Those last maps seem to show West Wales/Cornwall as an integral part of Wessex, was that how it was seen in 802 AD??
Graham.



The relationship between Wessex and Cornwall seems to be unclear at this time. What we know is that Egbert launched raids into Cornwall demonstrating that it was an independent polity. We know that the Cornish retaliated with the help of the Vikings but were beaten in battle by Egbert at a site referred to as hengestes dun (often interpreted as Hingston Down, near Callington BUT could equally be Hingston Down near Moretonhampstead). There are three charters from Egbert concerning Cornwall at this time, because of these many english historians have assumed that Egbert conquered Cornwall HOWEVER all of these are medieval copies and in most there are later examples which contradict ownership. It does seem that they may be medieval forgeries. To add to this view there are a number of independent sources which refer to Doniert rex Kernow drowning in 875 AD. Long after Egbert and when Alfred was on the throne of Wessex. Alfred built a system of burghs around the fringes of his territory to protect it and its people, this not only included Wessex but territory acquired from Mercia, Kent & Sussex. His most westerly burgh, a relatively small one was at Lydford, protecting the navigation of the Tamar. There are no Alfredian burghs in Cornwall. Alfred also left a will. His will does refer to territory belonging to him in Cornwall BUT it is extremely limited. Firstly the manor of Stratton in Trigg (nearer to the north East border than Bude! at the Tamar headwaters) and some other territory connected with Lydford (This may well be the Werrington Estate which was governed as part of Devon until the 1950s) but is now back in Cornwall. What is quite clear though is that he held no estates in other parts of Cornwall, which is what would be expected if he had political control of the whole territory.

Things seem to change after 930 - we have english being used in documents concerning Cornwall and landowners using English names BUT they often also have a Celtic Cornish name suggesting that English cultural interference had only recently arrived on the scene and that we are still dealing with native landowners here again indicating that there was no real conquest by Egbert. The real contenders for conquering Cornwall are either Athelstan (930) or William (1067) and even then its quite clear that Cornwall still has a largely autonomous position, even until the advent of the Duchy (1337).

[TGG]

CJenkin - Posted: 09.05.2007, 14:20 said:

[size=small]... The real contenders for conquering Cornwall are either Athelstan (930) or William (1067) and even then its quite clear that Cornwall still has a largely autonomous position, even until the advent of the Duchy (1337).[/size]


Possibly subjugation is a better phrase to describe what may have transpired at that time because 'conquer', imho, would have made all this forum and years of hard labour totally anachronistic. Subsequent events would also suggest subjugation - dominion and protection [q.v. Duchy documents; ASC 926 & 942 and Edmund's Charter of 944].

Also written in Cornish Granite is the fact that this very high-ranking political accommodation of Cornwall - which effectively removed the somewhat nebulous nature of the Earldom - was a restoration, in 1337, of its "pristine honor". This was a status reinforced by the First Duke of Cornwall in 1351 when commissioning a survey of Duchy property in "Cornwall and England".

TGG

[CJenkin]

Perhaps subjugation is a better phrase but conquest suggests a bit more political control. English historians argue that Egbert 'conquered' Cornwall - patently untrue - but it could be argued that he temporarily subjugated Cornwall.

My view is it is still questionable what if any control was exercised over Cornwall by Athelstan or the later English monarchs. Cornwall was clearly still very distinctive between 930 and 1066. Things certainly change by 1066 and William can dispose of the Earldom as he wishes and he is able to do that through force of arms, in the English context it is referred to as a Conquest and that seems to be appropriate for the Cornish context. Its important to recognise that it is the Duke of Normandy conquering Cornwall (so it becomes a royal possession) not the King of England (otherwise it would be integrated into the Kingdom of England). Something that has always been kept seperate.

[TGG]

CJenkin said:

[size=small]...Its important to recognise that it is the Duke of Normandy conquering Cornwall (so it becomes a royal possession) not the King of England (otherwise it would be integrated into the Kingdom of England). Something that has always been kept seperate.[/size]


Not wishing to prolong this 'off-thread' digression but thanks for flagging that up as it seems fundamental to the debate. What we do not know, however, is the events/timing which led to Cadoc being displaced or, in fact, what happened to Cadoc. Was it by attrition (by an enemy) or mutual agreement (between friends)? Possibly, because of subsequent treatment and distinction, the latter seems entirely feasible?

TGG