The British constitution may well be unwritten to protect the state secret that Crown, or public land, is divided into two parts. One part is for public benefit and the other part is for private benefit. As the original owners of the ‘private’ part, the indigenous Cornish national minority should be entitled, in international law, to reclaim their ancestral land to at least regain control of, and income from, such Cornish heritage sites as Tintagel Castle. Coveted pre-England Cornish archaeological sites arbitrarily taken as ‘private’, and handed over to English Heritage reveals an example of a routine political act exposing an underlying biased constitution, unfit for purpose.


The British constitution may well be unwritten to protect the state secret that Crown, or public land, is divided into two parts. One part is for public benefit and the other part is for private benefit. As the original owners of the ‘private’ part, the indigenous Cornish national minority should be entitled, in international law, to reclaim their ancestral land to at least regain control of, and income from, such Cornish heritage sites as Tintagel Castle. Coveted pre-England Cornish archaeological sites arbitrarily taken as ‘private’, and handed over to English Heritage reveals an example of a routine political act exposing an underlying biased constitution, unfit for purpose.

Crown land is politically divided into two parts. Crown land was land held by the government of William the Conqueror (1066) as Crown property. Currently, “The Crown is the only absolute owner of land”. (Land Registration Act 2002).

Part One – The Crown Estate - in UK not Cornwall created for the benefit of H.M. subjects not being Cornish. ( (Crown Estate Act 1961).

Part Two – The Duchy or Dukedom of Cornwall – Cornwall - created for the benefit of the heir to the throne under feudal privileges confirmed by the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982. That is: “The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall”. The suspicion is aroused that Cornwall was separated to enable the Duke to use his privileged position and Crown immunity from prosecution for ‘private’ profit. This evidence suggests that the Duchy was not created to ‘have regard to the interests’ of the Cornish.

The Crown Regime, “The Crown Estate is”, by its own self-analysis, “a unique custodian of a richly diverse national heritage”. It also asserts: “The Crown Estate is not the property of the government, nor is it the Sovereign’s private estate”. “The Crown Estate has 10,000 tenancies across the UK with 60% of market rents in London for key workers” and, a “Marine Communities Fund”. “The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall, the analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”. (Crown Estate letter in response to a Freedom of Information Request, 7th January 2005; HM Treasury letter of 24th February 2009).

The Crown Regime:- “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, now managed of the Crown Estate Commissioners”. (Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 12, Crown Property, para.278).

The Duchy Regime – Cornwall has been separated, without reason, from the benefits and “richly diverse national heritage” promoted by the Crown Estate. Rather than admit to this fact, the Cornish identity is being suppressed by the unwritten policies of successive British Crowns, governments, parliaments and Cornish local government. The Duke, as heir to the throne, was awarded the foreshore of Cornwall under the “Articles of Agreement” in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858. Our coastal area was taken as part of the Duke of Cornwall’s “territorial possessions” in a political capacity as the Dukedom of Cornwall. All responsibility is avoided by the Duchy’s alleged ‘private’ estate status, and yet, the Sovereign does not claim her politically acquired property is a private estate.

The Duchy Regime:- By Charter Cornwall as a Royal Duchy on 17th March 1337, (published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1978 as Statutes in Force, Constitutional Law 10) claimed ownership of “our Stannaries” which embraced the whole of Cornwall its cultural assets and mineral wealth. This claim is challenged by ‘The Royal Mines Act 1688’ provision of: “no tin mine shall be a royal mine.” The secrecy surrounding constitutional history as a ‘private’ estate for the heir apparent exposes an English national fear of open debate on modern medieval royal powers.

The Dukedom Regime:- One day later on 18th March 1337, a further Charter gave the heir apparent, as Duke of Cornwall: “The King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments in Cornwall”. The Duke was then able to exercise power as the government of the Dukedom of Cornwall. These changes from ‘Cornish’ to ‘duchy’ to ‘dukedom’ to ‘private’ reveal, unconstitutional powers since, Lord Coke’s, ‘The Prince’s Case 1606’, declared: it is “impossible” for property to be transferred by charter. “Private” now provides freedom from effective public control.

The Dukedom Regime:- The Duchy of Cornwall, a profit orientated estate and a constitutional body is now also being portrayed as a ‘private’ estate by various government departments. Even now, the 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”. The alleged ‘private’ title appears intended to act as covert censorship of the political capacity of the Dukedom of Cornwall in Cornwall. (

The Dukedom Regime:- The arbitrary official promotion of the Duchy of Cornwall as a ‘private’ estate exposes constitutional bias which, can be identified as an irrational legacy from the imperial past. Income for the Duchy of Cornwall from Cornwall amounts to the unacknowledged transfer of the wealth of a minority to the racial majority. This amounts to feudal dictatorship by the racial majority. Today, we need a guarantee of equality before the law to secure freedom from government discrimination and the abuse of power. Basic minority rights are laid down in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Dukedom Regime: With government support the Duchy of Cornwall is in a position to influence government policy for Cornwall. Duchy holdings outside Cornwall have been acquired by investing the profits from unregistered Cornish land and minerals. Although “the Monarch is the sole owner of all land”, (Land Registration Act 2002, intro. para.4) the Duke of Cornwall not only exercises ‘political’ control over land in Cornwall as “Lord Paramount”, (Inheritance Act 1833) but, that Duchy land is exempt from registration. (Land Registration Act 2002 section 84 note 135). This confirms a powerful racially motivated ‘political’ separation and benefits for the Dukedom not available to a normal ‘private’ estate.

The Crown Regime:- 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”. This is incorrect. The Crown Estate does not have rights to all naturally occurring UK gold and silver. 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. Such false claims present good grounds for the abolition of all royal prerogatives.
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”.). “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 Dukedom in order to protect the Dukedom’s claim to be a ‘private’ estate and also suppress the rights of the indigenous Cornish national minority.

No document has been found to explain the constitutional conflict between the ‘political’ 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” of the Dukedom of Cornwall, although, these ‘royal metals’ are a ‘territorial possession’ and a ‘political’ possession of the Duke within Cornwall.

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 Dukedom offers nothing similar for Cornwall. The Cornish name for Cornwall is: ‘Kernow’ and our language is known as: ‘Kernewek’. There is no official British Heritage or British Nature. This omission does not do justice to British passports.

Whereas, the Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund distributes to charitable causes, within the same area of collection of proceeds from intestate estates and bona vacantia, the Duke of Cornwall Benevolent Fund distributes, his right to similar proceeds from Cornwall, “throughout the UK and elsewhere”, in effect, as he pleases.

This manipulation of ‘public’ and ‘private’ rights points to prerogative and legislative power for Dukedom of Cornwall interests in Cornwall. The secretive Dukedom of Cornwall dimension, enjoys state aid and appears authorised to act in a ‘political’ capacity. A constitutional challenge is prevented by the Dukedom’s exemption from many laws including Freedom of Information and compulsory purchase. (Refer:- “The Rights of the Duke of Cornwall” –

The evidence suggests that the Cornish land taken by the English Dukedom of Cornwall, created in 1337, was taken as public property to provide an income for the heir apparent to avoid taxing the English national majority. There has been no change. The official promotion of a ‘privatised’ role for the Duke’s Regime of Cornwall, with ‘political’ power over Cornwall as if his own ‘private’ estate, is pushing the Cornish community of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly towards degradation and extinction for English constitutional, cultural and racial advantage. Concealing the historic exploitation of Cornwall is no excuse for continuing to use the inequalities of English nationalist democracy as a tool to deny the Cornish their Celtic history and indigenous national minority rights.

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”.
The Dukedom of Cornwall applies market rents for holiday homes 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. The plans make no reference to any Duchy responsibility under EU race or environmental directives and give insufficient publicity to the public right to participation in the decision making process.

The existence of Dukedom powers calls into question the credibility of plans to build up to 70,000 new houses on the Cornish peninsula. This, at a time of declining job prospects, infrastructure overload, low wages, increasing numbers of second homes and holiday homes, one million empty houses UK wide, unsalable houses, dire warnings of global warming, bankruptcies, disputed Area Action Plans, deliberate indifference to the Crown Estate example and, the high level of outstanding toxic collateralised debt obligations. (CDOs). It is a self evident fact that current plans and proposals are not a solution relevant to the needs of the Cornish community.

Until recently, London had been promoted as ‘the financial centre of the world’ with a ‘light touch’ regulatory system giving rise to CDOs. In the turbulent era of the credit crunch, our government now says an effective remedy requires a stringent regulatory and audit reporting system for all financial institutions around the globe.

In the world of human rights, ‘light touch’ has also been the preferred option for successive British governments to avoid an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity. (Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights has been excluded from the Human Rights Act 1998). ‘Light touch’ is clearly an euphemism for ‘non-legally binding’ in respect of people in power.

‘Non-legally binding’ is the standard opt-out applied when the UK signs up to, or ratifies, international human rights treaties and obligations which are then not incorporated into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. This policy protects people in power without regard to the public interest. No explanation can be found as to why United Nations law does not provide an effective remedy in UK domestic law, or why, the heir’s opinion is solicited as official policy as of royal prerogative right.

United Nations rights excluded by UK:- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with Article 7 UN observation: “The principle of equality before the law is especially important for groups that are in the minority”. Also, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination, and the International Covenants on: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil & Political Rights.

While authorising ‘The Dukedom’ the permanent English nationalist majority in the Westminster Parliament has failed to provide an enforceable constitution to support Britain’s culturally diverse society. The many examples of a written one stop constitution lay down the law on individual rights and the duties of people in power so that everyone knows where they stand. Constitutional rights provide freedom from government discrimination. Official discrimination is possible where, as in the UK, the rule of law is not moderated by a guaranteed right to equality before the law. Apartheid laws are a good example of the rule of law being exploited when there is no guarantee of equality before the law to prevent constitutional bias.

“A key moment to save the planet, says Charles” (Report on speech by the Duke of Cornwall in Brazil, ‘Daily Telegraph’, 13th March 2009). It would appear that saving the planet does not include saving the Cornish community. The Duke of Cornwall is also reported in: ‘The Sunday Times’ of 19th April 2009 under the caption: “Charles accused of ‘skewing’ planning” and: “using his privileged position”. The Charles problem was again prominent in: ‘The Sunday Times’ of 26th April 2009, with a quote from the President of RIBA, The Royal Institute of British Architects: “There is absolutely no place in our system for people with huge and instant access and powerful influence to cut across a delicately balanced democratic process”. Coincidentally, this is precisely ‘the Duke out of control’ problem for the Cornish.

The suspicion is aroused that the ‘skewed’ planning policies for Cornwall are inspired by the ‘privileges’ 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’, creates a ‘priority’ for Her Majesty’s Treasury, which, as the senior branch of government, would ensure that the Dukedom’s ‘interests’ in Cornwall are given ‘priority’ by all other departments of state including their support for the Duke’s constitutional right to the assets of bankrupt companies in Cornwall. (Land Registry Guide 35/2006).

The government has excluded the Cornish from the provisions of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This is a further example of minimal support for indigenous people and maximum support for the Dukedom’s political and constitutional state aid to consolidate ‘political’ power in Cornish land. Clearly, the British constitution has lost the plot with a suppressed indigenous Celtic people trapped in a Shakespearian tragedy of royal fantasy.

Deception in the arbitrary conversion of Cornwall from constitutional Duchy to private estate and a Celtic people from Cornish to English means, the Cornish get official recognition only by being subjected to constitutional bias. A human rights ‘credibility crunch’ in Britain can be avoided by providing a constitution of public rights rather than continue with the feudal grace and favour rights for dispensation by people in power, whether they are ‘political’ or ‘private’.

Six centuries ago national self-assertion and the elimination of ‘foreign’ competition was not subject to a standard set of rules. Today, the retention of arbitrary political power has transposed constitutional traditions into constitutional racism. This has created a very bad example for officials and the man on the street to follow.

We would appreciate your support for U.N. rights for the indigenous Cornish Celtic national minority, separated from the Crown Estate’s ‘diverse national heritage’ and given no recognition of its right to veto the Crown, Parliament and the Dukedom of Cornwall by royal charter of 1508. A public inquiry or judicial review is necessary to confirm that, the anti-Cornish racially discriminating policies retained and exercised by, for and on behalf of the unaccountable Duchy of Cornwall should be discontinued as being in violation of ‘The Race Directive’ No. 2000/43/EC. Of particular relevance is Article 3: “Scope, This Directive shall apply to all persons as regards both the private and public sectors”.

© Cornish Stannary Parliament – May 2009

What's Related

Document Options


Trackback URL for this entry:

No trackback comments for this entry.
CORNWALL IS SOMETHING SPECIAL | 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