CORNWALL – THE TERRITORIAL POSSESSION

   
CORNWALL – THE TERRITORIAL POSSESSION

On 17th October 2008, in response to a public consultation programme by the Government Office for the South West, a complaint was submitted under the title:-“The exclusion of Cornwall from the Marine Stewardship project and Marine Communities Fund of the Crown Estate”. Receipt of the complaint was confirmed on 29th October 2008, Ref:- 2086. No answer has been received.

Crown land is the land originally claimed by William the Conqueror (1066) as Crown property which has since been divided into two parts.

Crown land part one:- The Crown Estate, promotes community projects and accepts “Corporate Social Responsibility”, throughout the United Kingdom, except Cornwall. (www.thecrownestate.co.uk (Crown Estate Act 1961).

Crown land part one, “The Crown Estate is”, by its own self-analysis, “a unique custodian of a richly diverse national heritage, a resource of considerable significance”. “The Crown Estate is not the property of the government. Nor is it the Sovereign’s private estate. It is part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign in right of the Crown”. “The Crown Estate has 10,000 tenancies across the UK with 60% of market rents in London for key workers”. The Crown Estate promotes a “Marine Stewardship” programme and a “Marine Communities Fund”. “The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall”. (Crown Estate letter in response to a Freedom of Information Request, 7th January 2005, confirmed by HM Treasury letter of 24th February 2009).

Crown land part one:- “The Crown Estate comprises the lands and other rights including minerals and certain incorporeal hereditaments which the monarch enjoys in her political capacity in right of the Crown and which are now under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners” (Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 12 (1) Crown Property, para.278).

Crown land part two – Cornwall and Cornish people have been excluded from the benefits of the Crown Estate. Does this mean that Cornwall was created as a Duchy to provide an income for the heir to the throne aided by successive British Crowns, governments, parliaments and Cornish local government? The Duke, or heir to the throne, was awarded the coasts or foreshore of Cornwall under the Articles of Agreement in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858. The coastal area of Cornwall was considered part of the Duke of Cornwall’s “territorial possessions” in his political capacity as the government of Cornwall. The constitutional history and modern practices of the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall are treated as a state secret.

Crown land part two:- Cornwall was established by Charter as a Royal Duchy on 17th March 1337, (published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law 10). By this Charter the Duke of Cornwall claims ownership of “our Stannaries” which embraced the cultural assets and mineral wealth of Cornwall. (The Cornish name for Cornwall is: ‘Kernow’ and the language is known as: ‘Kernewek’).

Crown land part two:- One day after the original Duchy Charter, on the 18th March 1337, the heir to the throne, as Duke of Cornwall, was given the powers appropriate for the government of Cornwall with the provision: “The King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments throughout Cornwall”. (Specifically, Cornwall only). Governmental powers ensured maximum profitability for the Duchy.

Crown land part two:- The Duchy of Cornwall Estate, a profit orientated estate and a constitutional body is now being portrayed as a ‘private’ estate by various government departments. (Crown Proceedings Act 1947 s. 40 (2g) provides: “the right of the Duke of Cornwall to demand a Trial at Bar or to control or intervene in proceedings affecting (his) rights, property and profits”). There are no Duchy Commissioners. The Duchy of Cornwall is administered by the Duke of Cornwall. The ‘private’ title may conceal from public view the political capacity of the Duke of Cornwall in right of his Duchy of Cornwall. (www.duchyofcornwall.org).

Crown land part two:- In 1988 the Spanish government protected the coast of Spain by nationalising the entire coastal area under the “Ley de Costas” or Coastal law. The speculative coastal blocks of flats being pushed through in Cornwall at Carlyon Bay and the Hayle World Heritage Site would never have been possible in Spain (is that why they choose Cornwall) and more than likely rejected in Britain if Cornwall were included within the area of Crown Estate’s influence with its policies of safeguards for the marine environment and the community.

Crown land part two:- Income for the Duchy of Cornwall from Cornwall amounts to exploitation of a minority on behalf of the racial majority who, would otherwise be required to support the heir to the throne through taxation.

Crown land part two: The Duchy of Cornwall, appears to be using Cornwall as a private estate. Duchy holdings outside Cornwall have been acquired by investing the profits from Cornish land and minerals. This arbitrary division of land and mineral resources is inconsistent with the rule that, “the Monarch is the sole owner of all land”, (The Land Registration Act 2002, introduction para.4). In fact, the Act is not entirely accurate. For Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall exercises control over the land as “Lord Paramount” (Inheritance Act 1833, section 1) and, the Duchy of Cornwall’s: “Disapplication of requirements relating to Duchy land”, that is, exemption from the registration of its land under section 84 note 135 of the Land Registration Act). (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863-1982).

Crown land part two:- The Duchy of Cornwall applies market rents for holiday cottages and is exempt from the Leasehold Reform Acts which would permit advantageous conditions of purchase for long lease tenants. The Duchy of Cornwall is a landowner at the Cornish Mining World Heritage Site in Hayle where blocks totalling 1039 flats are planned with only a token 175 or 17% affordable homes envisaged. The plans make no reference to any Duchy responsibility under the Coast Protection Act 1949 or subsequent EU race and environmental directives.

Crown land part one:- The Crown Estate asserts under the title “Our Portfolio”, that: “Rights to all naturally occurring gold and silver – the mines Royal – belong to the Crown Estate”. The Crown Estate does not have rights to all naturally occurring gold and silver.
Crown land rights part one and part two:- By the Treasure Act 1996, the Treasure Designation Order 2002 and the Limitation Act 1980, section 37, the Duke of Cornwall is entitled to any gold and silver in Cornwall whether mined or found. It is also the case that - The Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, DEFRA, website, incorrectly asserts under:- “UK Organisations”. - “The Crown Estate also owns the prerogative right to all ‘Mines Royal’ (gold and silver) wherever found in the UK”.).

The qualification: “Except Cornwall” is not included in either text.

For both the Crown Estate and DEFRA to exclude reference to the Duke of Cornwall’s right to “Mines Royal” i.e., “gold and silver” in Cornwall and, also base metals, arouses the suspicion of an official conspiracy to hide a “territorial possession” of the Duchy in order to protect the Duchy of Cornwall’s claim to a private estate and also suppress the rights of the indigenous Cornish national minority.

No government or academic document has been found to explain the constitutional deficit between the public right to “gold and silver” as a territorial possession of the Crown Estate in the United Kingdom, except Cornwall, and, the ‘private’ right to “gold and silver” as a territorial possession of the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall.

This difference points to legislative priority for Duchy of Cornwall interests in Cornwall. The constitutional Duchy of Cornwall, in adopting the role of a state aided private estate, appears to be, in its political capacity, a modern version of the feudal Crown.

It is contended that the multi-departmental promotion of a ‘privatised’ political role for the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall, in its treatment of Cornwall as its own private estate, is pushing the community of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly towards degradation and extinction for private Duchy profit.

It would appear that the culture of Cornwall is not considered to be part of the “richly diverse national culture” promoted by the Crown Estate. The Duchy of Cornwall makes no claim to support the culture and identity of the Cornish people. Any public responsibility is avoided by the alleged ‘private’ estate status with its claim to exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The separation of the Duchy of Cornwall from Crown land is clearly either direct or indirect racial discrimination against the Cornish people and as such represents collective punishment, for which, a remedy in domestic law has been denied.

Perversely, it is considered for the greater good of the racial majority to deprive the indigenous Cornish national minority of its heritage.

Is the Duchy subject to regulation? Until recently, London had been promoted as ‘the financial centre of the world’ with a ‘light touch’ regulatory system regarded as the key to success.

Following the credit crunch, our government now urges the governments of the world to adopt a stringent regulatory system that will apply to all financial institutions around the globe.

In the world of human rights, ‘light touch’ has also been the preferred option for successive British governments in respect of an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity. ‘Light touch’ is clearly an euphemism for ‘non-legally binding’ in respect of people in power.

A long overdue total commitment to human rights by all those exercising power is needed to avoid a ‘credibility crunch’ in Britain,

‘Non-legally binding’ is the standard opt-out applied when the UK signs up to, or ratifies international human rights treaties and obligations. However, these international commitments are subsequently not incorporated into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. This can hardly be described as acting in the public interest. There has been no explanation as to why the following United Nations human rights provisions have not been incorporated into UK domestic law.

They include:- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The United Nations has affirmed, with respect to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration, that: “The principle of equality before the law is especially important for groups that are in the minority”.

The, apparently deliberate, vacuum, or ‘light touch’ application of the law, has permitted the representatives of the English national majority to abolish Cornish constitutional rights, confirmed by Act of Parliament, under “territorial possessions” (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858), by claiming a Duchy royal private estate with an assumed prerogative right to the cultural and economic assets and attendant intellectual property rights of the indigenous Cornish national minority.

The European Union has a system for monitoring the legal systems of Member States. It is called RAXEN. Its National Focal Point - United Kingdom – Report No.4 – Vienna 2004 reveals some interesting observations:-

“The UK has signed and ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in 1969. The UK has also signed and ratified the International Covenant for the Protection of Civil and Political Rights, in 1976. However, it can be argued that the principle of equality central to both has yet to be used to frame and shape UK legislation in a comprehensive manner and there is no individual recourse for UK individuals”. (Page 18). “Enforcement…..can only be challenged by the expensive and risky approach of judicial review”. (page 38).



The Cornish are indigenous to Britain. They have a Celtic language, Kernewek, recognised by the European Union as minority language number 21, and by the British government in 2002 under part II of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. However, the government has specifically and uniquely excluded the Cornish from the provisions of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (FCPNM).

The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention reported on 6th June 2007:-
“The Advisory Committee Considers that the “racial group” criterion which requires a court to determine liability in a claim of racial discrimination, appears to be too rigid to accommodate the situation of the Cornish, whose “separate identity and distinctiveness” is recognised by the government of the United Kingdom in their second State Report”. (para. 33).

“Cornish claims for recognition under the Framework Convention deserve further examination, in consultation with the persons concerned”. (para.36). This advice by the Council of Europe has been ignored. Clearly, “Britain’s Core Values Face Ultimate Trial”, as stated by Human Rights Watch, 3rd October 2004.

The current application of “the rule of law”, clearly, undemocratic by virtue of the absence of a statutory guarantee of the basic United Nations human right of equality before the law, has enabled the promotion of English cultural interests at the expense of the indigenous Cornish national minority.

The academic world of everyday English dictionaries offers an insight into the historical mind-set of the national majority towards the Cornish and other Celtic minorities of Britain. Dictionaries include provision for: pre-Celtic; pre-Greek; Pre-Christian; pre-Columbian and pre-Roman but do not include: ‘pre-English or pre-England’. The false impression is created that England has existed for much longer than is the case. It is an impression that masks the fact that Britain was populated by speakers of a Celtic language long before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons c.450 AD. Furthermore, the widely presumed semi-official authority of English dictionaries actually promotes English racial superiority and provides unwarranted justification to accuse the Cornish of making false claims.

Consolidations of royal wealth are epitomised as: “They began with the county of Cornwall (1227), later earldom and fourteenth century duchy”. (The Royal Demesne in English History by B.P. Wolffe, Allen & Unwin, London, 1971).

An official report reveals: “The hereditary revenues had once sufficed to meet all the private and public expenditure of the sovereign in normal circumstances”. (Report of the Committee on Crown Lands, Command 9483, June 1955). “In 1461, the property of the Duchy of Lancaster was incorporated by statute and formed part of the Crown without being merged with other Crown property”. (‘The Nature of the Crown’ by M. Sunkin and S.Payne, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999). It would appear that only the hereditary revenues of the constitutional Duchy of Cornwall from “territorial possessions” are separate from the Crown and classified as a ‘private estate’. Taxation for royal income is the alternative to hereditary revenues.

The eminent constitutional jurist, Lord Coke, stated in: ‘The Prince’s Case’ 1606, (8 Co.Rep.26b) that :- “Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the heir to the throne”. In 936 AD an expedition by Athelstan against the Britons of Cornwall, expelled the Cornish still in Devon and they were all: “compelled to accept the river Tamar as their boundary” (‘Anglo-Saxon England by F.M. Stenton, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1947, p.337). Cornwall is highlighted with the word: ‘Cornish’ on the map of western Europe shown as part of: ‘The Celtic Fringe’ in the National Geographic Magazine, March 2006, Vol. 209, No.3). Currently, the Woodlands Junior School in Kent, for example, teaches: “There are quite a lot of Celts living in the British Isles today. They live mainly in Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland”. The English education system in Cornwall avoids the use of the ‘Celtic’ word.

One day before the original Duchy Charter, on the 16th March 1337, King Edward III penned a further Charter creating the Earl of Salisbury, which includes the observation:- “We have advanced our most dear first begotten Edward (whom in the prerogative of honour as is meet, we have caused to have precedence of others) to be Duke of Cornwall, over which awhile ago Dukes for a long time successively presided as chief rulers. And of this said Duchy we have given him investiture”.

Clearly, this reference to former “chief rulers” could not be a reference to the previous line of Earls, since King Edward III was attempting to claim continuity with the former Celtic rulers which he classified as Dukes. As the result of conquest, a new replacement Norman/Anglo-Saxon ‘Dukedom’ as imposed rulers for the indigenous Cornish speaking population of Cornwall was created with unlimited powers.

Despite the absence of any claim to the Stannaries by the Crown in the authoritative Domesday Book 1086, the Duchy Charters claimed ownership of the Cornish tin mines as “Our Stannaries”, which comprised the Cornish organisation, including parliament and courts of equity, that controlled mining operations. The Stannaries covered the whole geographical area of Cornwall. Apparently, ‘the Stannaries’ remain, by Charter of 1337, part of the “territorial possessions” of the Duchy of Cornwall, if, that is, the Duchy of Cornwall is a constitutional body, since a private Duchy estate could not hold “territorial possessions”. (The Stannaries covered tin and later copper, not gold and silver known as ‘Royal Mines’).

“It was resolved in the Star-Chamber in the same term, (1607) that the King had not the pre-emption of tin in Cornwall by any prerogative. For stannic fodina, nec plumbi fodina etc, or other such base mines, do not belong to the King by his prerogative, but to the subject which is the owner of the land, but the pre-emption of tin in Cornwall belongs to the King as an ancient rent and inheritance due to the King, as well of tin in the land of the subject as in his proper demesnes: and although that now a reason can not easily be rendered of things done before time of memory, yet it may well be, that all the land of the county was the demesne of the King; and upon grant of the land the King reserved the mines to himself: for these mines of tin are of great antiquity, as appears after Diodoro Siculo”. (‘The Case of the Stannaries’ – Lord Coke, 12 Co.Rep.9). There is no reference by Lord Coke to a private estate.


The decisive ingredient in the creation of a ‘self-supporting Duke’ was achieved by claiming, in the Duchy Charters 1337, the ownership of the Stannaries, the Cornish tin mining organisation, as “our Stannaries”. (Latin original:- stannariam nostram). This would appear to be a claim warranting independent and impartial research, since: “The King unquestionably tried to imitate the continental sovereigns in claiming all metallic mines, this pretention was never permanently established except for the precious metals, other mines, as a rule, remaining the property of the ground lord”. (The Victoria History of the Counties of England - Cornwall, published by Archibald Constable, London, 1906; Edited by William Page F.S.A. p.524, and Confirmed by ‘Plowden’s Commentaries’ on the ‘Case of Mines’, page 310, 1761). In Cornwall, the historical position of the Stannaries as the ground lord is difficult to refute.

Nevertheless, in true feudal fashion, the Duchy of Cornwall can ignore the Royal Mines Act 1688, which clearly states: “no mine of copper or tin shall be adjudged, reputed or taken to be a royal mine”. The Duchy claims mineral rights in respect of all the land of Cornwall as its “territorial possession”. It also enjoys “reputed” rights under section 37 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863.

Cornwall has, therefore, been exploited as the primary source of income for the heir to the throne for several centuries assisted by successive British Crowns, governments, parliaments and Cornish local authorities, usually, in secret. “Nothing in this Act shall detract from the rights, powers, privileges or authority of the Duke of Cornwall”. (Cornwall County Council Act 1984, section 50).

The Roman, Diodorus Siculus wrote about the visit to Britain of the Greek explorer Pytheas of Massillia c.300 BC and his account is recorded in: ‘The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek’, by Barry Cunliffe, Professor of European Archaeology at University of Oxford, Walker and Co., New York, 2002.

The Greek records reveal that; “The inhabitants of Britain who live in the promontory called Belerion are especially friendly to strangers and have adopted a civilised way of life because of their interaction with traders and other people. (West Cornwall is also known as Belerion). It is they who work the tin , treating the layer which contains it in an ingenious way”. The passage underlined was omitted or deleted from this quote in the Nomination Document for Cornish Mining World Heritage status submitted to UNESCO in 2006.

The stark blank space left in the text, at section 3b on page 124, reveals censorship by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport apparently to promote the interests of the racial majority. It is contended, that it is, therefore, not a multi-cultural Department of State. (Refer www.cornish-mining.org.uk – downloads - nomination).

“Christianity was first brought to the Island of Britain in the first century. It flourished (although it was not the dominant religion) among both the native Celtic population and the Roman colonists. When the Roman Empire withdrew from Britain in the fifth century, the island was invaded by pagan German tribes (including Angles, Jutes and Saxons) , who conquered the southern part of the island and drove the Celtic Britons into Wales and Cornwall. Although Christianity was preserved in these Celtic strongholds, most of what is now England was under pagan control”. (The Anglican Catholic Church of America).
Tin production in Anglo-Saxon West Devon was taxed at a standard rate, whilst in Cornwall, the Duchy tax was levied at twice the standard rate since Cornwall was officially regarded as “foreign” by both the Crown and the Duke. The indigenous Cornish speaking population was considered to be ‘foreign’ in their own land. The Duchy Estate properties held outside Cornwall are the result of investments from the royal fortune obtained from the double tax on Cornish tin production and subsequent income from “territorial possessions” in mineral rights and cultural sites.

(English double tax for foreigners:- Lord Coke 4 Inst 33 {c.1600} and (King Henry VII, by A.F. Pollard, Longmans Green, p.xlvii, London, 1913, “making aliens and denizens pay double taxes” and (G.R. Lewis, the Stannaries, Harvard, USA, 1908, “The separation based on racial differences” p.85 - double charge in Latin – Devon, “xxx denarii” [30 pence] & Cornubiae, “v solidi” [60 pence] - pp234-235). The Duchy tax regime was abolished in 1838 in favour of the acquisition of income through mineral rights by the Duke of Cornwall from intestate estates, bona vacantia, foreshore and rivers etc., in Cornwall only.

The process continues with Tintagel Castle being given to English Heritage, but, the date of transfer from the Duchy remains a state secret since the Duchy of Cornwall has claimed exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and has refused to answer questions. (Duchy letter dated 22nd February 2005). (Relevant English Heritage publications make no reference to Tintagel Castle as a “territorial possession” of the Duke of Cornwall as is to be inferred from the Duchy of Cornwall Charters of 1337).

By the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858, Parliament accepted the Foreshore of Cornwall as: “part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duke of Cornwall”.

This Act of Parliament of 1858 makes Cornwall, and its archaeological sites, the constitutional ‘territorial possession’ of the Duke of Cornwall in his political capacity as confirmed by the ‘Cornwall Foreshore case’, 1854-1858 where the Duke claims the role of the government of Cornwall. There is no Act of Parliament or legal opinion indicating that the Duchy of Cornwall is an ordinary private estate. The date, reason and authority for any alleged change is treated as a state secret.

A “territorial possession” indicates an area under political control and implies a property held in trust. In this case, under Duke of Cornwall control in trust for the Cornish national minority not for arbitrary transfer to English Heritage in secret.

The designation ‘private estate’ for the heir apparent represents the abdication of any fiduciary obligation and facilitates the theft of Cornish cultural property with presumed royal authority to promote English cultural supremacy in Cornwall.

The first Duchy Charter was published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law 10. This constitutional authority for Duchy of Cornwall government and its current role as owner of, e,g. “the Stannaries” and “Tintagel Castle” is being suppressed by the United Kingdom government.

Withholding such important facts helps the English establishment to claim that the Cornish are English. It avoids the responsibility of correcting the legacy of feudal institutionalised racism, encouraged by Shakespeare’s: “This England, this scepter’d isle”, a case of poetic licence in denial of a multi-cultural United Kingdom.

Institutional racism has been defined by Sir William Macpherson in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry as: “The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping”. (Cm 4262-I, 1999).

The evidence suggests that the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall are politically active to effect the abdication of their responsibilities as a constitutional body once dedicated to public service under the Duke’s original motto: “Ich dien”, (German for: “I serve”).

The government’s Culture South West body has refused to answer an enquiry on the cultural interests of the Crown Estate dated 10th August 2007, and continues to exclude the Cornish Mining World Heritage Sites, even after constructive protest, from its revised cultural strategy publication “People, Places and Spaces”.

Although the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport uses the sub-title: “Human Rights Champion”, she has not responded to a letter of 29th September 2008 requesting information about “The Future of Culture”. Presumably, elected and appointed servants of the Crown are ashamed of the institutionalised anti-Cornish policies they cannot in all honesty defend. Principles are being sacrificed by officials caught up in a classic case of: “aggressive nationalism” (UNESCO, NARA Document on Authenticity) in place of equality before the law for one and all.

It is contended that the established UK government policy of suppressing Cornish history and the Cornish Celtic identity in Cornwall are, in fact, a supportive part of its priority interest of suppressing the centuries of history as the government of Cornwall and current powers of the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall. There is no explanation, as to how the heir to the throne’s constitutional Duchy can now be accepted as a genuine “private estate” by any independent observer.

The state acquisition of Cornish territorial assets for “private” use has not led to the Cornish becoming majority shareholders or decision makers in the Duchy of Cornwall enterprise as justice and history would require. Official “privacy”; has become the key to protection against independent investigation of secretive Duchy affairs.

The credibility of plans on the table to build 20,000 new houses on the Cornish peninsula is being called into question. This, at a time of declining job prospects, particularly in rural areas, infrastructure overload, low wages, increasing numbers of second homes, one million empty houses UK wide, unsalable houses, dire warnings of global warming and ignorance of the Crown Estate example and the Spanish example of the Coastal Law, “Ley de Costas”. It is a self evident fact that current plans and proposals are not a solution relevant to the needs of the Cornish community.
In the UK, except Cornwall, the Crown Estate is active in the community. In respect of Scotland for example, it states: “The Crown Estate and the Community: Working Partnership” - Stewardship in action, creating employment“. “The Crown Estate has long-term experience in providing decent rural housing for let”. (‘Except in Cornwall’, not included in the Crown Estate text). The Crown Estate has estates in the Duchy of Lancaster area, where, the Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund distributes to charitable causes, within its area, all the proceeds received from intestate estates and bona vacantia whereas, the Duke of Cornwall Benevolent Fund distributes similar proceeds from Cornwall throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

The Duchy of Cornwall makes no claim to having a working partnership with the Cornish community.

We have a duty to ensure that the Cornish community claims the benefits accruing from its own shoreline rather than accept the alternative of being witness to the destruction of our heritage by a discredited Duchy of Cornwall constitutional Cornish government turned state aided ‘private’ estate in denial of “territorial possessions”.

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre, the government’s leading global warming research centre has affirmed:-

“Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonisation, it is difficult to see that anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilising the climate”. (Sunday Times, 15th March 2009).

“A key moment to save the planet, says Charles” (Report on speech by the Duke of Cornwall in Brazil, Daily Telegraph, 13th March 2009). Regretably, it would appear that saving the Planet does not include saving Cornwall and the Cornish community.

The suspicion is aroused that the expansionist planning policies for Cornwall are inspired by the bias of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982. Section 8 of the Act proclaims: “Duty of Treasury”, (b ii) “The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. ‘Shall’ elevates a ‘duty’ into a ‘priority’ for Her Majesty’s Treasury, which, as the senior branch of government, would be ‘duty’ bound to ensure that Duchy of Cornwall ‘interests’ in Cornwall become a ‘priority’ for all other departments of state and Cornish local government authorities under the Cornwall County Council Act 1984, section 50.

H.M. Treasury’s duty “to have regard to the interests of the Duke” reveal state backing or authority, in effect, state aid, in the form of modern Acts of Parliament, giving the appearance of urgent retrospective legislation to bolster discredited claims, by Crown and Duchy of Cornwall government, to the ownership of property in land, culture and minerals in Cornwall as ‘private’ in denial of “territorial possessions”.

There is no historical record of any type of property having been purchased by the Crown or the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall, which raises questions as to the meaning now attributed to the word ‘private’ when the original “territorial possessions” lie in the area occupied by the indigenous Cornish of Celtic origins.

By these methods, the Cornish have been subjected to centuries of collective punishment and degradation.

The suspicion is aroused that the government of the United Kingdom has a financial, cultural and racial interest in the ‘interests’ of the Duke of Cornwall and that complete secrecy is being applied to suppress an act of annexation of Cornish economic and cultural property made without consent. Early recognition of this grey area surely prompted an act of restitution by the Crown through the grant of a veto, to protect Cornish interests, included in the Charter of Pardon of 1508, but, this documented right (Rowe v. Brenton, Trial at Bar, 1829, Appendix, 54) is currently dismissed as no longer applicable, although, not repealed.

It is contended that: The provision of state aided ‘interests’ for the Duchy of Cornwall, combined with freedom from the Freedom of Information Act, as a newly created ‘private estate’, place the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall in a political position to undertake racially biased acts of state in secret in Cornwall as if Cornwall were at the Duke’s disposal as his own private estate or fiefdom.

The evidence for this conclusion is the fact that after nearly 700 years of profitable association with Cornwall, an incumbent Duke of Cornwall has never displayed any ‘interest’ in recognising the right of the Cornish to officially exist as an indigenous national minority of Britain with control over its own cultural heritage.

“The existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given state party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria”. (United Nations Human Rights Website).

The requirement of “objective criteria” is an acknowledgment that the racial majority within a given state cannot be an impartial judge in its own case, or, that is, act as judge to promote its own interests.

By “objective criteria” there is a solid case for affirming that the Cornish are an indigenous national minority of Celtic ethnic origins fully qualified for recognition and protection as such under all United Nations Declarations, Covenants and Conventions. The UK denial of United Nations law puts the Cornish under pressure of assimilation against their will.

The Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969-1973 – The Kilbrandon Report, reveals:-

“The people of Cornwall continued to be Celtic. Just as the people of Scotland and Wales so the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English County.

“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”. (Para.329).

“Overlordship”, in plain English, means, the assertion of English racial supremacy.

It is noted that numerous media reports have raised the widely held possibility of ‘oil’ being the motive behind the Iraq war, however, in matters relevant to the Crown, the freedom of the press is not in evidence. There has been no investigative journalism posing the question: ‘Why the Duchy of Cornwall?’

A searching probe would inevitably lead to mineral wealth as the defining factor. Consequently, the Crown chose Cornwall for an income for the heir to the throne and imposed ‘Duchy rule’ on Cornwall by creating the heir apparent, the Duke of Cornwall, the first duke ever created in Britain.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is reported on BBC TV, 27th March 2009, as stating: “people in the 21st century expected discrimination to be removed”. He seeks to extend heir apparent rights to women. This long overdue conversion to equality before the law should include everyone, especially national minorities, and not be restricted to just another high profile add-on up-date prerogative for the Crown.

If social justice is promoted by the Crown Estate Commissioners in all parts of Britain except Cornwall and Duchy of Cornwall promotes its socially destructive profit orientated ‘interests’ in Cornwall, what is the meaning of justice in the English language?

If democracy is equality before the law as provided in the written constitution of every advanced democracy in the world and elections in Britain have failed to provide a constitutional or statutory guarantee of equality before the law in English law, then, how can England know the meaning of democracy and equality?

The Constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden, Chapter 1, Article 9, affirms:-

“Courts, public authorities and others performing functions within the public administration shall observe in their work the equality of all persons before the law and shall maintain objectivity and impartiality”.

The Swedish constitution gives rights to the individual to control people in power.

In support of our assessment of the difficulties to be overcome we offer an independent opinion in support, with a quotation from, ‘The Nature of the Crown’ by Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999:-

“Moreover, in exercising these (executive) powers the Crown, or more usually those members of the executive who act in its name, has remained comparatively free from both political controls exerted by Parliament and legal controls exerted by the courts.
The consequence is that much of what is done in the name of the Crown may be done in what has been described as the ‘deadground’ (1) of the constitution, namely the territory which falls beyond the scope of both Parliamentary and judicial scrutiny. It is for this reason that Jo Jacob begins his work: ‘The Republican Crown’ by saying that: At the heart of Britain, law does not rule. The Crown is at the centre. If there are laws, they are not judiciable in any ordinary sense and not discernable by any legal technique. We may grant that the boundaries of this core are defined by law and, certainly that its scope is diminishing: but, in this centre the rule of law does not operate”.(2).
(1) Per Lord Mustill in R. v. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fire Brigade Union [1995] 2 All E.R. 244 at 268 by Hadfield, at pp 231-232.

(2) J.M. Jacob ‘The Republican Crown’: Lawyers and the making of the state in Twentieth Century Britain (Aldershot: Dartmouth 1996), 1.

(End of quote from: ‘The Nature of the Crown’).


In the case of Cornwall, the government, by ignoring United Nations human rights law, places itself in a position to exploit the Crown prerogative in order to promote English cultural and racial supremacy in Cornwall under the protection of Crown immunity.

We urgently need your support for an independent and impartial inquiry into the differences between the coastal law operations of the Crown Estate in the United Kingdom, except Cornwall, as compared with, the coastal law operations of the heir to the Crown’s Duchy of Cornwall territorial possessions in Cornwall, in relation to, European Community environmental and competition laws and United Nations human rights laws, with a view to establishing equality of opportunity and equality before the law for the Cornish community, before any further large scale planning projects are undertaken in Cornwall, planned that is, in the final analysis it would seem, as the means of eliminating the Cornish problem.


See also:- “The Rights of the Duke of Cornwall”.


© Cornish Stannary Parliament – April 2009
Camborne, Cornwall, TR14 0JG
Tel:- 01209-710938
e-mail:- info@cornishstnnaryparliament.org
web site:- www.cornishstannaryparliament.org








 

What's Related

Document Options

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//trackback.php?id=20090330192443776

No trackback comments for this entry.
CORNWALL – THE TERRITORIAL POSSESSION | 0 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
copyright CSP 2006 ..... Designed and hosted by FTI