Cornish Stannary Parliament Enquiry into the Duchy of Cornwall

Thursday, October 26 2006 @ 01:20 AM BST

Contributed by: Admin

In the beginning was Kernow, then came the Duchy political machine.




A1. The heir to the throne

Following British resistance to the Roman invasion and resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasions famously inspired by the Celtic King Arthur and the much later invasion of the Normans, the title Duke of Cornwall and the first Duchy in Britain was created by three Plantagenet royal charters of 1337 and 1338. The charters occurred just forty years after the final version of Magna Carta appeared in 1297. Both charters were written in Latin while the indigenous Cornish were Cornish speakers. Edward III, the royal framer of the document, now published by HMSO as "Constitutional Law 10", specifically included his clearly expressed intent that the grant was to be inherited by the Plantagenet dynasty as heirs to the throne. That is; "the first begotton son of his heirs hereditarily to succeed for ever".

Verdict:- Many dynasties have come and gone but Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster has managed to devise laws to enable each successive politically, racially and religiously acceptable heir to the throne to "inherit" the Duchy for its wealth potential as a substitute for imposing extra taxes on English people. (See section B). The Parliament at Westminster is Her Majesty's Parliament because its members are obliged to swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than swear to uphold or defend the unwritten constitution.

A2. A Duchy unknown to the common law

Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed; Vol.8; Constitutional Law; Butterworths 1974; para. 1560, reveals; "this charter creates a mode of descent unknown to the common law". No reference is made to the fact that "this charter" was the first of 17th March 1337 or that the second and third Duchy Charters (18th March 1337 and 3rd January 1338 respectively) provide "return of all the King's writs and Summons of Exchequer" (See C8).

Verdict:- The power of the Duchy to exercise "the king's writ and summons of exchequer" authority means that it possessed the basic requirement of any independent government, namely; the authority to impose and collect taxes. Although the Cornish Stannary Parliament competed for influence with the colonial administration of the Duchy this tax raising prerogative was essentially intended to place the Duchy beyond the scrutiny of Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster. This conclusion is supported by the present injunction on Members of the House of Commons against sensitive questions regarding the Duchy of Cornwall.

A3. The king's apprenticeship and duchy government

At its inception in 1337, the Duchy of Cornwall estates comprised territorial possessions, or property held in trust by a ruler or government, which, by any reasoned argument, could never be described or taken as a private possession unless, by the application of fraudulent procedures. The safeguards against royal abuse of power contained in Magna Carta were once again completely ignored when, in the nineteenth century ambitions for the Duchy "privatisation" conversion scheme were advanced. Today, the Duchy of Cornwall is popularly promoted by the English press as the "private estate" of the heir to the throne, who is currently, Prince Charles.

Verdict:- The Duchy was probably intended as a King's apprenticeship in a colonial country but is now, with the advent of human rights law, destined to become the last of the royal dictatorships of Europe.

A4. The Duchy political machine

The Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents, 4th Ed., Butterworths Vol 15; 1970;Descriptions of Government and Public Offices, para; 4:11; reveals, "Duchy of Cornwall". In June 1994 the 'Harpers and Queen' magazine published an interview with Kevin Knott, deputy secretary of the Duchy of Cornwall. The duchy official is reported as saying that H.M. Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1983-1982 "enabled the Duchy to do almost anything". In relation to questions he said; "The purpose has been to obscure awkward questions about the Duchy of Cornwall". "We still sit out on a limb, as part of the Crown that has its own rules and regulations". And, a revelation from, 'Estates of the English Crown' - "The Duchy (of Cornwall) was (in 1620) not only a successful land managing agency. It was also a political machine". Chapter 10 by Graham Haslam, Archivist of the Duchy of Cornwall, 1975-1991; (A8) page 295; edited by R.W.Hoyle.

Verdict:- This evidence points to the true pedigree of the Duchy of Cornwall.

A5. Duchy rights, powers and privileges "for ever"

Following the royal command (A1) of an inheritance "for ever", the interests of the Duchy are currently protected by an Act of Her Majesty's (H.M.) Parliament at Westminster under the title "The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982". The Act is printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (H.M.S.O.) and distinguished by the heading "Constitutional Law 10" but the Duchy requires "H.M.Treasury" approval before disposing of assets, or territorial possessions, held in trust for the Cornish people. Section 33 provides the Dukes with the right to make claims to land in Cornwall "nunc pro tunc" or legally back-dated claims to property. Section 37 provides "possessions include property parcel or reputed or claimed to be parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall or annexed to the same". Section 38, "The rights, powers, privileges and authorities hereby made exercisable by the Duke of Cornwall….."





Verdict:- The reason for back-dating ownership of property cannot be of honest intent. Cornwall has been squeezed into poverty by the Duchy and its supporters operating in secret behind closed doors. The Duke receives no income from the Civil List (general taxation) and pays some taxes on a voluntary basis but pays no inheritance tax.

A6. Her Majesty's general law of the Duchy

H.M. Tamar Bridge Act 1998, section 41, provides; "Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the Crown including (without prejudice to the general law concerning the applicability of statutes to the Duchy of Cornwall) the Duchy of Cornwall……." (See D1)

Verdict:- There must be a "New Prince's Party" (A8) in control of Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster.

A7. A royal charter may, or may not, be an act of parliament

By the Prince's Case of 1606 a panel of judges ruled that "The words by authority of Parliament in a royal charter are sufficient to make it an Act of Parliament". Halsbury's 4th Ed; Vol.8, para.1560. note 3. This made the three Duchy Charters an Act of Her Majesty's Parliament. However, the words "by authority of Parliament" i.e., Her Majesty's Parliament, are also included in the Royal Stannary Charter of Pardon of 1508 but in this case the qualifying phrase has not yet been found sufficient to make this particular royal charter an Act of H.M.Westminster Parliament. (See B5)

Verdict:- It is possible that the unique Stannary royal charter of confirmation, which provides no benefits for royals, and is designed to curb the abuse of power by English institutions, is being deliberately suppressed by the agents of the English national majority. The Royal Stannary Charter of Pardon of 1508, provides innovative human rights provisions for the Cornish national minority as revealed in the fact that the "Tudor", or Celtic, King Henry VII agreed a provision to enable the Cornish Stannary Parliament to veto Acts and proclamations by the Dukes of Cornwall and statutes etc, passed by Her Majesty's Westminster Parliament which are deemed, by them and "their heirs and successors", to be prejudicial to the Cornish people as a Celtic national minority of Britain.

A8. Duchy rotten boroughs

The king's writ was exploited by the Dukes of Cornwall to summon Stannary parliaments up to 1750 and to create 44 Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Cornwall at a time when Scotland had 45 members at Westminster. This situation prevailed up to the Reform Act of 1832. It was total overrepresentation and misrepresentation. To promote Duchy interests, the constitution permitted the Dukes to establish "The Prince's Party" in Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster (A6) and these "Duchy rotten boroughs" have gone down in history falsely labelled as Cornish rotten boroughs to the detriment of the reputation of the Cornish. Academics are clearly under pressure to re-write history to protect the image of long deceased royal personages as if some higher authority expects to hide the truth "for ever". Grace and favour patronage was also applied by the Dukes to pervert the course of democracy by controlling the selection of mayors and town councils of Cornwall - Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall (JRIC) 1980, 'Parliamentary Representation in Cornwall' by Graham Haslam, Archivist to the Duchy of Cornwall 1975-1991, (A4) article on pages 224-242 and JRIC 1985 - 'Pocket Boroughs' by Robert Eliot at pages 324 and 330.

Verdict:- The Dukes have traditionally been political animals beyond the reach of the Crown Courts the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Inland Revenue. There have been no Acts to control Duchy abuse of power only those which extend its scope.

A9. Territorial possessions of the Duchy

Westminster's Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 makes reference to "Articles of Agreement" between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall and significantly, describes the "Territorial Possessions of the Crown" and the "Territorial Possessions of the Duke". The provisions of this Act were the culmination of a dispute between the Crown and the Duchy over the Foreshore of Cornwall by which, on the out of court opinion of one judge was slipped through H.M. Parliament to permit the Foreshore of Cornwall to become one of the Territorial Possessions of the Duke of Cornwall. In the preparatory legal exchanges the Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales asserted; "The Duchy Charters (plural) vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire county of Cornwall. Somerset House May 1855". This territorial interest is elsewhere in the document affirmed as "the government of Cornwall" with the Stannaries the ultimate owner of the soil.

Verdict:- Significantly, private possessions are not mentioned in this "out of court" and "out of parliament" settlement which, as an off the record "verdict" greatly facilitates the secret "privatisation" and backdating objectives. (See A5)





A10. Her Majesty's Act to quiet titles in Cornwall against the Duchy

The Limitation Act 1860 was an Act of Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster was intended to "quiet titles within the county of Cornwall as against the Duchy of Cornwall". The Act extended to Cornwall, as a constitutional Duchy, the restrictions on royal claims to property and land of the subject introduced into the Kingdom of England from 1623 to 1769 as the Nullum Tempus Acts, signifying that, time for legal action has expired. As if inspired by the old "Prince's Party", (A8) this provision to curb royal claims to property was effectively in place for Cornwall as a Duchy only from 1860-1863. By 1863, H.M. Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, had, in a classic case of unbridled royal power and influence over H.M. Westminster Parliament, reasserted Duchy power and privileges under sections 33 and 37, to permit the Duchy to back date claims to land in Cornwall "reputed" to be the Duke's. The Duchy Management Act 1863-1982 is still in force.

Verdict:- At the economic level Her Majesty has been treating Cornwall detrimentally different from England for the profit and prestige of the Dukes of Cornwall and to absolve the English taxpayer from the burden of paying to support the heir to the throne.

A11. An injunction hanging over Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster

With utter contempt for the principles of democratic open government and free speech, there is an injunction in the House of Commons to prevent questions that might "cast reflections" upon the Crown or Duke, for example, enquiries regarding the rules of inheritance for the Duchy of Cornwall. Letter from the House of Commons Library to Andrew George M.P., dated 16th June 1997.

Verdict:- This is effectively a "royal injunction" apparently necessary to stifle the curiosity of M.P.s regarding "the general law of the Duchy" contained within Her Majesty's own Tamar Bridge Act 1998, above (A6), while the principle of a royal injunction may, it is feared, also be applicable to the more troublesome media as the stick counterpart to the carrot of the honours list. (See B12)

A12. The purchase of influence

It is noted that, except for "The Sunday Times" and the "Sunday Mail" on 3rd February 2002, no other media source makes reference to the donation of $1million to the Princes Trust from the American firm Enron in bankruptcy and under Congressional investigation for fraudulent accounting. Even then, the question as to whether the donation infringed charity rules was not raised. The "Sunday Mail" to its credit commented; "The net included not only the most powerful figures in New Labour, but the Chairman of the BBC, Rupert Murdoch's economic guru and even the Prince of Wales (Duke of Cornwall). It raises increasingly disturbing questions about the extent to which money was used to buy influence".

Verdict:- H.M. spin doctors - you can't tell lies "for ever".

A13. The 'D' notice department at the Press Complaints Commission

"The Independent" and "The Guardian" of 1st February 2002 expose the cosy relationship between Prince Charles (Duke of Cornwall) and Lord Wakeham forced to resign as head of the Press Complaints Commission through his decisions as an Enron director and threats of legal action by irate pensioners who have lost all their investments in the now bankrupt Enron company.

"The Sunday Times", Business Focus of 10th February 2002 reports from a speech by Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) the body to supervise "the city" the financial centre of London, "warned that an Enron-style collapse, a large and unpredicted corporate failure could happen in Britain".

Verdict:- The press does not report that the establishment has ensured that such a failure would not be permitted to happen to the Duchy of Cornwall although described as a "private" estate in true spin doctor fashion to attract public sympathy and admiration. The Duchy of Cornwall is entirely protected from the capitalist principle of risk. Meanwhile, Cornwall is being kept bankrupt by the unpublished and unregulated policies of the Duchy of Cornwall. (Section B)


B. Why is the feudal Duchy of Cornwall preserved by Her Majesty's Parliament?

B1. Commons to King - "Make your fortune in 'foreign' Cornwall".

The historical record cannot conceal the English parliament's traditional unwritten proposition that the king should "live of his own", that is to say, he should find his own income to look after his own children. If the king acquired a private source of income, H.M. Parliamentarians reasoned, they would be spared the invidious task of taxing their own constituents for the means to support the heir to the throne.

Verdict:- The unfolding proposition met little resistance, being as it was in the interests of the English king, the heir to the throne the Duke of Cornwall, parliament, taxpayers and people as a whole. Magna Carta was ignored in opting for the fourteenth century "nationalisation" (without consultation or compensation) of the land, stannary organisation and cultural heritage, the property, of the Cornish speaking "foreigners", a mere minority, way out west.






B2. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" ("On Liberty" - John Stuart Mill - 1865)

Eminent historians, such as William Stubbs in "The Constitutional History of England" Clarendon Press 1906, at page 543, observes for the fourteenth century; "The principle that the king should live of his own had a double application: the sovereign who could dispense with taxation could dispense likewise with advice and cooperation; if his income were so large that he could live within it, his administration must be so strong as to override all opposition…(this) alternative would have left him free to become a despot".

Verdict:- The present Duke appears to seek public distance from the Duchy - concentrating on securing a modern image through the creation of the Princes Trust and the Princes Foundation as a charity for the apparently benevolent distribution of the proceeds derived from the political privilege of claiming Duchy of Cornwall Charter/Act rights to intestate estates and bona vacantia etc., in poverty stricken Cornwall. (See C9) The Code of Conduct of the Duchy of Cornwall represents the ultimate in the culture of resistance to change.

B3. Who audits royal accounts?

Stubbs (B2) at page 558, reminds the reader; "The king might be requested to live of his own and so far they (the Commons) would relax the hold which royal necessities might give them over him; but, if he could not live of his own (they would not) connive at unfair manipulation of indirect taxation". And, page 594, "If the king could not be made 'to live of his own' and no hold which the nation could obtain over his ministers could secure honesty and economy in administration…." And, page 595; (that) "all the proceeds of the taxes and customs should be brought into the Exchequer was enforced in 1311"…………."parliament showed a strong wish both to determine the way in which grants should be applied, and to secure an efficient audit of accounts".

Verdict:- The exchequer, in this case, is the exchequer of Her Majesty's government not the exchequer of the Duchy of Cornwall government, (A2).

B4. The English dislike of paying taxes

G.R.Elton in his book "England under the Tudors" Methuen & Co. 1967, page 47, makes reference to; "The famous theory that the king should 'live of his own' - that is, on his regular revenue and without recourse to special grants - found favour both with a people reluctant to part with its substance and with a king desirous of making himself independent. The politic Tudor reluctance to tax frequently helped to disguise what had already become a fact. Most expenditure of the crown was no longer in any sense personal to the king; it was for purposes of state, and the nation in whose interests the money was spent ought to have contributed more formally to its supply….. English people could continue to indulge their natural dislike of paying taxes…………."

Verdict:- Inequitable taxation is a central feature of Cornwall's problem.

B5. The unconstitutional privileges of the heir to the throne

The facts show that Her Majesty's Parliament has long since established a precedent for their mutual advantage of encouraging the king to "live of his own" and clearly, they still expect the king and the Duke of Cornwall to engage in search and discover missions to uncover additional sources of income to meet any additional "private" expenses. This means that any property in Cornwall, except collapsed mine shafts, can be "reputed" to be, and declared to be, part of the Duchy private estate "by authority of Her Majesty's Parliament" (See A7).

Verdict:- In America, the auditors and directors of Enron, including Lord Wakeham, friend of Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall, were caught out with Off-Balance-Sheet private income or debt through loop-holes in, and exemptions from, the law. By proffering their good offices of turning a blind eye to novel sources of Duchy income, Her Majesty's Parliament and its members have ingeniously absolved themselves from the responsibility of imposing a general tax on English constituents to pay for the private expenses of the heir to the throne.

B6. They say neither the king nor the duke can do any wrong

Stubbs (B3) at page 609 reveals, (under Edward III, 1327-1377) "complaints by successive parliaments about the unconstitutional dealings (of the king) with customs (taxes)". And page 584; "National discontent at the royal expenses".

Verdict:- Today, although not permitted, such complaints would hardly be voiced in Her Majesty's Parliament without being branded by the agents of conformity as anti-monarchy and therefore anti-social and unpatriotic.

B7. The wealth of the stannaries

By far the largest historical source of income for the Duke was derived from the grant of "profits" (or royal tax) in the form of "coinage of the stannaries", a tax on tin production, granted in the Duchy of Cornwall charter of 1337/Act 1606. "The freedom of stannary industrial conditions facilitated the early introduction of capitalism". G.R.Lewis 'The Stannaries" Harvard University, 1908, page 228.

Verdict:- By the inclusion of "the stannaries", in the Duchy charters as an unqualified definition, "the stannaries" therefore, by the rules of interpreting H.M. Acts of Parliament, embraces all the privileges extended to the stannaries including an independent legal system and accompanying legislature confirmed by the royal stannary charters of confirmation of 1305 and 1508.





B8. The English custom of double taxing foreigners

The English custom of imposing a "double tax on foreigners" is confirmed by A.F. Pollard London University; "The Reign of Henry VII", Longmans and Green 1913, Introduction; page xlvii. (re:- general merchants tax) "making aliens pay double taxes". Also; William Stubbs, Oxford University; "The Constitutional History of England" Vol.II; 4th Ed; Clarendon Press, 1906; page 555. "In 1337" (the king imposed a custom in respect of wool) "doubling the charge in the case of aliens".

Verdict:- A double tax on the Cornish, as foreigners, would expose them to economic pressure to adopt the culture and language of the English.

B9. Their Majesties impose double taxes on the Cornish national minority

In 1337 the Duchy of Cornwall became the beneficiary of the customary English double tax on "foreigners" imposed as "coinage" on Cornish tin production, as compared to Devon tin production in England. This difference in the "coinage", or Duchy tax, had been introduced simultaneously in 1198 AD. Refer G.R. Lewis; "The Stannaries" Harvard University, U.S.A., 1908. pages 234-235 - ("xxx denarii de stannariis in Devonia", and; v solidi de stannariis in Cornubia" thirty pence for the stannaries of Devon and five shillings (sixty pence) for the stannaries of Cornwall). Lewis on page 85 reveals, "It is possible that the motives for the separation of the Cornish tinners from those of Devon in matters of administration were based on racial differences". He points out that Devon tinners were of Anglo-Saxon stock and the Cornish, Celtic.

Verdict:- The English, as relatively recent arrivals, were the "foreigners" to Britain not the indigenous Cornish. Treating the Cornish national minority as foreigners for taxation purposes and as English, as and when required, should be seen as yet another expression of institutionalised nationalism designed to pervert the course of history for racial, economic and cultural advantage.

B10. Contrary to the law for the Dukes to receive Coinage

Her Majesty's double charge on Cornish tin production, when compared to neighbouring Anglo-Saxon Devon, and its legal consequences, extended from 1198 AD to the repeal of "H.M. Coinage Abolition Act 1838", in 1983. Section 3 of the Act authorised an annual compensation, tax free and less expenses, to be paid to the dukes for the loss of income from coinage (or tax on tin production). Section 6 provides compensation for the officers who collected the "coinage". The actual payments to the Dukes did not have any expenses deducted as permitted in the Act so presumably, there were none directly incurred by the Dukes. The Duchy charter grants "coinage and profits of the stannaries and stannary court" to the dukes, as part of the income of the Duchy as a separate territorial entity, while, a Duchy of Cornwall letter of 15th December 1976 agrees; "it would be contrary to the law if the Duchy received coinage dues". (See C2)

Verdict:- This confession confirms that the truth cannot be suppressed "for ever".
It confirms the "Territorial" intent of the Duchy charters as opposed to the recent "private estate" concept. However, the receipt of compensation by the dukes at the "double coinage tax" imposed on Cornwall indicates a double fraud. First; the "double coinage tax" fraud on the Cornish as "foreigners (not to mention the fraud of the English failing to accept that they are the foreigners in relation to the indigenous Cornish). Second…………….

Verdict:- Second; the acceptance of the annual compensation by the Dukes to at least 1983 for the "loss" of "coinage" which, the Duchy claimed in 1976, would be "illegal" for it to receive in the first place. Finally, that Duchy letter stated that the "coinage dues were always paid to the Dukes officers for assaying and weighing tin". But, of course, the "officers" were specifically compensated separately under section 6 of H.M. Coinage Abolition Act 1938.

B11. Illegal compensation

The Duchy confession in 1976, of the illegality of its private income from the "coinage" of the stannaries, would be in agreement with the ruling in the Case of Mines 1568 - Plowden, Commentaries, page 330. Consequently, if "coinage" as a private income was illegal because it was due and payable to the hands-on administrators of "coinage" to cover their expenses, why would H.M. Parliament, in the 1838 Act for the discontinuation of the collection of "coinage", which had the effect of rendering void any claim to a possible expense for that discontinued collection, authorise compensation for the Duke, as well as the officers, unless they had been told wrongly at the time, that it was a "private" income for the Dukes? The annual compensation was calculated at the "double coinage tax" rate and paid to the Dukes for generations from the consolidated fund. Any expenses connected with "coinage" not covered by compensation to the officers would have been covered by the system of court fines and confiscations in respect of uncoined tin or low quality tin brought to Coinage Halls and Blowing Houses in the Stannary towns. "Laws of the Stannaries", 1760.

Verdict:- The Duchy was paid compensation of £16, 216.00 per annum from 1838 to 1983 by the government for loss of "coinage" on its own authority but auditors had not checked the facts, (See B10+B11). The royal injunction hanging over the Her Majesty's Parliament should be removed to permit questions on the dubious validity of Duchy of Cornwall coinage and mineral rights as "private" income.





B12. Duchy mineral rights on tin, copper and other minerals

By the time the "coinage" was abolished, the Duchy had laid claim to the minerals of Cornwall although not mentioned in the Duchy charters which specifically states that the charters will specifically include by name all the "possessions" of the Duke. Subsequently, Duchy mineral rights were levied at up to 15% on tin and copper production which obviously contributed towards making the mines of Cornwall uneconomic. It is estimated that the Duchy has claimed up to 100,000 acres of mineral rights in Cornwall without registering those claims in the Court of Stannary and Mines from which, by Charter/Act, Dukes have the right to claim any fines imposed. By the evidence given in the Cornwall Foreshore Dispute between the Crown and the Duchy in 1858, the minerals of Cornwall are the property of the Stannaries of Cornwall, and therefore the Duke is not entitled to personal profit from his claim to "mineral rights" even as a "reputed" territorial possession of the Duchy government of Cornwall. The claim to "mineral rights" in Cornwall by the Duke of Cornwall is not provided for in Her Majesty's in force Royal Mines Act of 1693 published as "Constitutional Law 7". However, section 37 of Her Majesty's in force Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982 does define minerals as "other rights in respect of mines and minerals".

Verdict:- It is not possible that Her Majesty's Parliament intended "other rights" to include profits in "mineral rights" for the Duke since it would be in conflict with the payment of expenses for abandoned mines and collapsed mineshafts, that is, "mineral expenses" being met by the Cornish taxpayer? Another good question for Her Majesty's Parliament (A11). English Partnerships claims to have covered "Shaft Capping 1998-1999" in Kerrier District Council for £400,000.00.

B13. Stannary Parliament invoice to the Lord Warden of the Stannaries

The "double coinage tax" overcharge for Cornish "foreigners" at today's values amounts to over £20billlion - an invoice was sent to the chief officer of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Lord Warden of the Stannaries, but was rejected.

Verdict No 1:- . The advocates of Her Majesty's biased constitution would have us believe that kings, queens and dukes are still entitled to a unique undemocratic immunity from competition laws, the standard rules of auditing, financial reporting, compensation, their own laws, and international human rights conventions.

Verdict No 2:- The grounds for the Cornish revolution of 1497 are likely to have included complaints about the royal "double coinage tax" and thus contributed towards the concessions enshrined in the Stannary Charter of Pardon 1508 but confirmation remains elusive.

B14. More feudal Duchy profits

Her Majesty's royal legislature at Westminster continues to retain, the Duke's feudal privileges, as well as continuously providing additional "rights, property and profits" for the Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles, (Crown Proceedings Act 1947 section 40g). The list includes; continuing exemption from the Nullum Tempus Acts to restrict royal claims to the land and property of the subject; e.g., the Isles of Scilly; intestate estates; treasure trove; bona vacantia; the general law of the Duchy of Cornwall; back-dated claims to property to avoid legal challenge, territorial possessions; exemption from planning permission; writs and summons of Exchequer as the government of Cornwall; profits of the Stannary and other courts; forfeitures for their own use; the foreshore of Cornwall; gold and silver mines, mines and minerals and anything reputed or claimed to be part of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Verdict No.1:- "Coinage", and its successor "mineral rights", are the subject of conflicting laws. Conveniently, current law can still be interpreted to provide extra income for present and future Dukes of Cornwall. By compensating the Duke from 1838 to 1983 for the loss of a non-existent coinage expense, and then at the "double tax rate", and providing mineral rights exempt from expenses, an illegal practice in the provision and protection of private royal income, and the attendant unconstitutional and racist treatment of the Cornish as "foreign", has been uncovered. All this has been continued without repeal to the present day by Her Majesty's government and Her Majesty's Parliament at Westminster.

Verdict No2:- The evidence indicates that there is a distinct lack of integrity and clarity in English law which, in any legal confrontation, facilitates a favourable interpretation in support of the interests of the Duchy, and against those of the Cornish subject. The Duchy is endeavouring to become a "private estate" or a business enterprise with protected profits exempted from incurring any expenses.

Verdict No 3:- Who will rid me of this troublesome priest? It is increasingly evident that the modern exercise of influence by the Duke of Cornwall as heir to the throne can be encapsulated in an adaptation of the royal command of Henry the Second, 1154-1189; "Who will rid me of these troublesome Cornish"? The performance requires the services of one or more ambitious academics or politicians to cheat for the cause of lower taxes and higher prestige for England, by eliminating the Cornish Celts from history.





C. The political use of the general law of the Duchy of Cornwall as a royal tool to impose English nationality on the Cornish.

C1. The Cornish national minority

It is noted that in rejecting the inclusion of the Cornish within the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1999, the Home Office department of the British government gave as its reason;

"We are not aware of any rights granted under the Convention which are being denied to any individual in Cornwall".

Verdict:- This is a shabby excuse.

There is denial by the British government of the right of the Cornish to exist officially as a Celtic minority.

It follows, therefore, that, there are no rights available to be denied to the Cornish under a Convention for national minorities if, the British government works on the false premise that the Cornish are part of the English national majority.

The position of the British government cannot be supported by rational argument and it has therefore, it is contended, made its unreasoned decision under political pressure from, or to placate, the heir to the throne for English racial advantage.

C2. The right to cultural independence bought and paid for

It appears that the Duchy statement in its letter of 1976 concerning the illegality of "coinage" as a private income for the Dukes (B10) is confirmation that the "double coinage tax", collected for the private consumption of the Duke, was indeed contrary to the law. If this was the case the rejection of the invoice for the £20billion charge for the extra double part of the taxation imposed on the Cornish as "foreigners" has not been fully explained.

Verdict:- By paying for 640 years the racially motivated "double coinage tax", over and above the standard Devon or English rate, the Cornish have purchased their right to exist officially as an independent non-English Celtic people.

C3. The territorial integrity of Cornwall

"The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the fourteenth century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship, but it established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. The use of the designation (Duchy) on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall". "The Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969-1973".

Verdict:- A totally ignored expensive royal commission. Another case of Cornish culture losing out to the priorities of English politics.

C4. Celts then and Celts now

There is no respect for the indigenous Cornish, as British citizens, in being subjected to the ignominious practice of a "double tax" normally applicable to "foreigners" but extended to the Cornish as Celts. In modern times there has been a policy U-turn. The Cornish are documented in official publications as English. Over the past half century the Cornish have been pushed to the top of the poverty league to become a second class English county. This unenviable status ensures that there are precious few resources left to resist the latest English administrative assault to convert the Cornish to English.

Verdict:- In a classic example of preconceived notions of racial infallibility, Her Majesty's official English History curriculum for schools has been politically edited to exclude the history of the Celts and the heirs to the throne as Dukes of Cornwall. This underhand programme of assimilation is covered up as being unacceptable to the promotion of the Monarchy and the English national ego.

C5. The Duchy charters are "for ever"

Written into the Duchy charter of 1337 is the royal command "for ever". Nothing was changed when the charter was reclassified by a panel of Her Majesty's judges as an Act of Her Majesty's Parliament in 1606. "For ever", as a constitutional definition, is in direct conflict with the constitutional claim that H.M. Parliament is sovereign. The Duchy Charter 1337-8/Act 1606 includes the appointment of the sheriff of Cornwall, various manors, approximately half within and half outside Cornwall, "the stannaries" "profits of the court of stannary and mines" with the central commitment to "dignify the chief places of our kingdom with their ancient honours". Quoted from Appendix D of the Manning Edition of the Rowe v. Brenton case of 1830. "Our kingdom" was eventually changed to "Our Empire".

Verdict:- Those ancient honours of the Cornish, which includes institutions such as the Cornish Stannary Parliament, have been vilified and ridiculed while the Cornish language has been ignored. Honours in the form of archaeological monuments have been arbitrarily placed in the care of the state subsidised English Heritage by the Cornish subsidised Dukes of Cornwall. The absence of legal and constitutional clarity has made it difficult, if not impossible, for the Cornish to assert their Celtic identity and constitutional rights, especially, in the Crown Courts or by judicial review. The Public Interest Immunity Certificate is open to abuse for use in the interests of the English national image or the Duchy royal image rather than for a genuine British national interest.





C6. The ancient honours of Cornwall

Neither Magna Carta, shredded by Henry VIII to create a royal state religion, nor the continuing reliance on an unwritten and biased constitution have placed any restriction on the imposition of additional taxes on the Cornish or confiscations of property in Cornwall under still valid royal Duchy Charters 1337-8/H.M.Act 1606 now listed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as "Constitutional Law 10". This convenient arrangement for the agents of the English national majority has made it easy to avoid the unpleasant alternative, for the Crown, government and H.M. Parliament at Westminster, of imposing extra taxes on their English countrymen. A touch of Christian charity and aspirations for the aura and kudos of King Arthur were, however, still coveted by Edward III, 1327-1377, and this may have led the king to require the Dukes, by their charter, to "respect the ancient honours of Cornwall".

Verdict:- Her Majesty's biased constitution permitted at first, the "nationalisation" (without consultation or compensation), followed by the "privatisation", of the Duchy of Cornwall property and structure as the government of Cornwall. This procedure has been conducted as an under cover policy of back-dating rights as if they were consistent with the original Duchy charters. This deception necessitated a parallel policy of suppressing the "foreign" Cornish Celtic identity and their natural desire to expose the dirty tricks inflicted upon them. An investigation into the role of the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall has never been contemplated since it would, without a doubt, "cast reflections" upon generations of Dukes of Cornwall and uncover the complicity of Her Majesty's Parliament.

C7. No heritage of the English in Cornwall

The Duchy of Cornwall charter includes a grant of "Tintagel Castle", the site of which represents an ancient honour of the Cornish people. There is no respect for the Cornish when this ancient honour has been arbitrarily transferred to English Heritage without prior consultation, or the right of appeal. There is no respect for the Cornish when another people deny them control over their own ancient honours in the form of archaeological heritage sites and their independent parliamentary and legal systems.

Verdict No 1:- These sites were properly omitted from the Domesday record of royal property but now arbitrarily placed in the control of English Heritage by the assertion of crude political power over cultural facts.

Verdict No 2:- Through Duchy political influence and serious abuse of power by agencies of Her Majesty's government methods have been devised to cut the Cornish off from their natural Celtic roots, culture, language and history.

C8. Void and of no legal effect

"The king's writ and summons of Exchequer" (A2) provided in the second and third Duchy charters/H.M.Act for the heir to the throne are still valid, and therefore, available for use in Cornwall to assert the undemocratic powers and feudal privileges of a Duchy government. Cornwall is, therefore, on the statute book and considered separate from England since "the exercise of the prerogative by the rightful heir (to the throne) out of possession (not in office as king) is void and of no legal effect", that is, in England but, historically not in Cornwall. Halsbury's Laws; 4th Ed; Vol.8; Constitutional Law, para.902 - 1 Bl Com (14th Ed) 249.

Verdict:- If the Cornwall part of Britain is treated as part of England, it is possible that everything done under writ or prerogative by the Dukes of Cornwall as heirs to the throne in Cornwall was, and still is, illegal. However, would an English court agree? The absence of legal clarity and manipulation of the law for Duchy of Cornwall and English institutional advantage is evident from the evidence made available by the Cornish Stannary Parliament. A conflict of law and lack of clarity, in a domestic legal system, is contrary to the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights and all Duchy of Cornwall Charters and Acts must therefore be repealed.
.
.C9. The Duchy achievement - "The Killing of Cornwall"

There is also no respect in being a constitutional Duchy reduced to the poorest "county" in Britain or the poorest Duchy in Europe - refer; Poverty Research Department, Plymouth University and "Business Age" magazine October 2001, article, "The Killing of Cornwall". The poverty label comes after nearly seven hundred years of Duchy rule and profit motive still possible under currently valid and "in force" royal Duchy of Cornwall charters 1337-8/H.M.Act 1606 now listed as "Constitutional Law 10" in the 1978 edition by Her Majesty's Stationery Office".

Verdict No 1:- The absence of legal clarity is a violation of human rights law. It is time for the Cornish to accept responsibility for their own affairs by demanding honest cooperation in place of the economic and cultural exploitation policies imposed by the bluff and bullying tactics of the past and present.

Verdict No 2:- If this Enquiry raises questions for which no answers are forthcoming, or is dismissed as "casting reflections" (A11) then English nationalists are encouraging the Duchy to don the mantle of a royal dictatorship. Grace and favour for some is no law for the rest.

Verdict No 3:- At present there appears to be a "Duchy Interest Immunity Certificate" hanging over the efforts of the indigenous Cornish to be officially reunited with their Celtic roots. H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, is Duke of Cornwall, and he could do a great deal to make a new beginning by leaning on the British government publicly to put an end to the institutionalised racial discrimination against the Cornish as a Celtic people.





D. Human Rights - Infringements of the European Convention of Human Rights

D1. A Bad Precedent

From the above evidence, Her Majesty's English dominated Parliament has set an unequivocal precedent that it is prepared to apply one rule for the English and another for the Cornish and manipulate the law to the disadvantage of the Cornish and even avoid the responsibility of imposing additional taxes on English people to support the heir to the throne. The policy of achieving an ever expanding Duchy income is a legal structure still in place, with no questions asked, or answered, as attested by Her Majesty's Tamar Bridge Act 1998 section 41, above, (A6) and consequently while such Charters/Acts remain on the statute book they constitute a violation of the human rights of the Cornish as a group and as individuals under the following Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights:-

Article 10 - Interference by public authority in the exercise of freedom of expression in its bias in favour of royal and English heritage, and its denial of proportionate funding for a Cornish Heritage organisation, a situation incompatible with constitutional law expressed in the Duchy of Cornwall charter 1337/Act 1606 and Her Majesty's Act of Union 1706 - one British nation.

Article 9 - The right of the Cornish to be officially recognised as a Celtic people and British citizens with the right to change or discard the belief imposed by an English education policy of teaching the superiority of an English nationality.

Article 11 - The right of freedom of association and the right not to associate by arbitrary inclusion in the general concept of English heritage in violation of the right as British citizens and passport holders not to be classified as English.

Article 13 - Violation by persons acting in an official capacity in the form of economic and legislative bias in favour of creating a general law to protect the property claimed by the Duke of Cornwall and against the people of Cornwall by providing no effective legal remedy against the decisions of the Duke of Cornwall.

Article 14 - Enjoyment of rights without discrimination - Cornish people subjected to discrimination on the grounds of 'race', and 'association with a national minority' and discriminated against on the grounds of bias in favour of personages of royal 'property' and 'birth'.

Article 17 & 18 - Prevention of the destruction of rights and freedoms by the state in its failure to recognise the right of the Cornish to exist officially as a Celtic people with a proportionate share of state funding to support Cornish culture, institutions, heritage and language, etc.

Protocol 1 Article 1 - No one shall be deprived of his possessions - in particular the cultural possessions of the Cornish national minority illegally confiscated and attributed as the political property of the English majority racial group.

Protocol 1 Article 2 - The right to be taught according to the philosophical convictions of the parents is being infringed by Her Majesty's official English education system teaching that Celts are a non-existent race in Cornwall and that Cornwall is an English county rather than a constitutional Duchy.

Verdict:- Feudal policies have made Cornwall the victim of anti-Cornish, economic, cultural and racist policies by a succession of Her Majesty's governments for and on behalf of the Dukes of Cornwall.

ADVISORY NOTE. Were English legal precedents applicable to this enquiry, the conclusions heretofore mentioned would be deemed final and not subject to appeal.


0 comments



http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//article.php?story=20061026012036130