Talk:Cornwall

	Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Cornwall]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall&action=purge)	edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall&action=purge)
	Talk:Cornwall/to do

• /Archive1 (2001-Feb 2004 - 35kb - Is Cornwall a country? Should we use "UK" or "England"? English Heritage)

Contents

1 NPOV 2 Politics and language 3 links 4 Roman name 5 Religion 6 Language 7 Cornish identity and History 8 Other culture 9 Cornish people Cornish ethnicity 10 "Many residents think of Cornwall as a separate home nation...."

NPOV

This article lacks neutrality, and is written as if Cornwall is a seperate country, rather than a mere county of England. Cornwall is not independent in any sense, and is and has always been a part of England. Astrotrain 11:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's scrupulously fair, actually, and I speak as somebody who (if I'm honest) thinks the Cornish claims of nationhood a little silly. Perhaps you could be more specific? --Khendon 13:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do not remove the NPOV tag until it has been addressed. The article states that Cornwall is not a part of England, when it clearly is. Any notion of indepednece can be dealt with at the Cornish independence page of which a link to would suffice. The page is biased towards Cornish indepedence movements. Astrotrain 14:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag because it should be justified - baldly asserting it to be POV is not enough. Anyway. There are genuine disputes about the status of Cornwall, and that being so we should make no definitive statement on it, whatever our opinion on the "truth". --Khendon 17:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting the article back to what is POV, when you insist on justification? Your version states that "most people regard Cornwall to be a part of England" when in fact "it is a part of England". If someone disputes POV, you cannot simply dismiss it and then seek to revert changes made to address the POV areas, that is simply vandalism. Astrotrain 17:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've not reverted anything; I edited to a different intro to try and get a consensus. "It is a part of England" is not an acceptable change, for the reason I already gave - there is a genuine dispute and therefore we shouldn't make a definitive statement. --Khendon 18:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, "it is a part of England" is acceptable, because Cornwall is part of England legally, ceremonally and administratively. If Cornwall was not part of England, Cornish independence would already have been achieved. Proponants of Cornish independence will, I'm sure, agree with me and Astrotrain that Cornwall is a county of England, but that they would like it to be a country/region of the United Kingdom. There is no POV in saying that Cornwall is, currently at least, a county of England, and I don't see why you think there is. I'm also strongly against using the phrase "considered to be a county": the word county is well defined, it is not a fuzzy area. Joe D (t) 20:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression Cornwall was a duchy and not a county! Surfgatinho 00:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a Duchy of Cornwall, but this is just the estate of Prince Charles, and although it includes a significant area in Cornwall, it also includes land throughout the country.

To add to Steinsky's comments, it is clear to eveyone that Cornwall is a county of England. The article even states so in the table on the right, and in the table of English counties below. I think Steinsky's reverted introduction is a neutral and acceptable viewpoint which should be retained. There may still be some POV comments in the main sections of the article that could be re-written. Astrotrain 09:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To all disputants please see the websites run by the Cornish Stannery Parliament, Tyr Gwyr Gweryn and even the Cornish time line on the website for Cornwall 'County' Council. Proponents of Cornish independence do not agree with you and in fact often raise the issue of the constitutional nature of Cornwall. The Cornish Stannery Parliament claims to have evidence that Cornwall is not part of England and therefore wrongly administered as a county of England. "Ceremonially" when the Queen visits Cornwall she acts as a visiting head of state and the Duke takes the role of head of state. "Ceremonially" when a sturgeon was caught of Cornwall it was offered to the Duke, Prince Charles not the Queen. Finally many Cornish folk consider Cornwall a Duchy not a county. Fulub le Breton

The Duke of Cornwall has nothing to do with the administration of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall is the estate of the British monarch's eldest son, which includes land in Cornwall, but much of it is outside the county. Cornwall is governed by Acts of the British Parliament. No seperate reference to Cornwall exists in any British legislation. The Queen visits Cornwall as Queen of the United Kingdom, which includes Cornwall. Astrotrain 19:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Duchy estates should not be confused with the actual Duchy of Cornwall. What you are providing is the line given by the Duchy and the government at the moment, but this is not born out by the constitutional paper work. An investigation in the commons of the constitutional nature of Cornwall and the Duchy was blocked. Fulub le Breton

1855-58 The legal arguments of Sir George Harrison, Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall, defeat the Crown's aspirations of sovereignty of the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy that Cornwall argues the Duke has sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown.

1856 On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merley by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall. Thenceforth mineral rights above the Low Water Mark belonged to the Duchy and below it to the Crown.

1863 The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirms that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king.

1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall - official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position.

1974 Reform of Cornish Stannary Parliament

1977 The Stannators right to veto Westminster legislation is confirmed by Parliament.

2001 (April) A sturgeon is caught off Cadgwith and is offered to the Duke of Cornwall. When landed in other parts of Britain the fish is customarily offered to the monarch.

In contrast to every English and Welsh county the High Sheriff of Cornwall is appointed by the Duke of Cornwall not by the Crown. For reference see page 72 of Cornwall a history by Philip Payton of Exeter university. Fulub le Breton

• What crap! Cornwall is a county of England, it is not connected to the Duchy of Cornwall, except in name. The Duchy of Cornwall has legal rights in order to generate income for the Duke of Cornwall (who becomes the British King in anycase). Cornwall cannot veto British legislation, it elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays British taxes, is administered by a County Council established by British legislation. Any notion of independence is dillusion. The Duchy of Cornwall is established by British legislation, and has no bearing on the geographical area known as Cornwall. Astrotrain 14:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes thank you Astrotrain but i think you are confusing what you would like history to be with in fact the actual events. You will excuse me if i chose to take more seriously the findings of the following two groups on separate investigations into the constitutional nature of Cornwall than your foul mouthed out burst that has no evidence to support it.

Independent of my account details of these two events can be found on the Cornish history time line as provided by Cornwall County Council.

I will agree with Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) when in 1856 he fought and won the case against the crown for the Duke to have control of all sea and river beds in Cornwall by using the argument that all the territory of Cornwall is a Duchy as defined by the three original Duchy charters. These three charters where enough to win the case and they are all still to this day law.

Also you will forgive me if i side with the 1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution which concluded that Cornwall should be referred to as a Duchy.

Once Ireland, America and even Calais returned MP's to Westminster and came under British rule but they have never been England.

Finally the Sultan of Brunei could own huge amounts of land outside of the territory of Brunei as estates but that would not mean he would stop being leader of all Brunei or that Brunei would stop being a sultanate, the same goes for the Duke and his Duchy.

Above Astrotrain you stated that Cornwall is a county and always has been, please provide evidence to prove the 'always has been' part. Can you? Or are you just inventing history and making statements that you like as opposed to the truth.

Again you might not like this as in fact the current Duchy and Westminster government do not like this but that does not make it false, so please feel free to find evidence to refute my points on the constitutional nature of Cornwall or keep your obscenities to yourself! Fulub le Breton

Forgive me for butting in, but I do think that NPOV is within the bounds of attainability here. First of all, I think all parties could agree to language to the effect that "Cornwall is administered de facto as a county of England" (Cornwall County Council itself will tell you so, after all), "but there is an ongoing dispute into its de jure status" – then link to an article on the controversy over Cornwall's constitutional position. Then we could maybe point out that "Many Cornish (and other) people regard Cornwall as culturally a distinct 'country' from England" (might I invite comparison to well-known geocultural units like the French provinces, the Provinces of Ireland or the Eight Provinces (Korea) (or for that matter Wales before 1997), that also have no de facto administrative autonomy?).

Second of all, I really think that language to the effect that "Cornwall is a ceremonial and administrative county of England" sounds so adamant that it can only be interpreted as trying to present a (unionist) POV. For the same reason, highlighting the expression Anglia et Cornubia (mentioned elsewhere in this talk page) is only relevant if you're trying to prove a Cornish nationalist POV. And the language "Some Cornish nationalists dispute Cornwall's status; see Cornish independence" really seems intent upon marginalizing Cornish nationalists – both with the word "some", which minimizes them, and the reference to "Cornish independence", which misrepresents them (most Cornish nationalists are autonomists). So it seems to me that we should try to craft an introductory section free of either nationalist or unionist talking points, but that provides the basic background for people wanting to learn more about the controversy. QuartierLatin1968 23:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I, as the one pointing out the facts about the Duchy's constitutional nature (see above) totally agree and would add that unionist anglocentric histories of this archipelago have done the most damage to our historical perspective. The current page has moved toward a more neutral point of view, however i still expect individuals with their own agendas to revert and change the page back to a more unionist point of view. Fulub le Breton 28/01/05

• There is no official source that confirms the view that the Duchy has rights over the county of Cornwall. These facts disputed. It is fact that Cornwall is: considered a county of Enlgand, elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays taxes to the UK Exchequer, is governed by British legislation. Cornwall is not referred to sepreatly in any constitutional legislation, there is no Cornwall Act that refers to its situation. The Duchy of Cornwall, by their own admission, is a property holding company, governed by Acts of the UK Parliament, the income of which is the property of the British monarch's eldest son. Any legal privledge of the Duchy is done so by the command of Act of Parliament. The Duke of Cornwall does not live in Cornwall, the Duchy owns less than 4% of the County. All these facts confirm the status of Cornwall as a county of England.

Astrotrain

• • But listen, even if your conclusion is 100% true, it's not through Wikipedia that you're going to prove the validity of that conclusion. Producing facts that, in your opinion, support your POV doesn't make alternative POVs go away. What Wikipedia must do, in the case of an ongoing controversy, is to state relevant points of the argument. Simply because you believe strongly in your position doesn't mean that it is impossible to dispute it – the fact is, there is a dispute, and you're in it. According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we're supposed to "present conflicting views without asserting them". There's no Cornwall Act – good! This is relevant! This is important! So point it out, where appropriate. But it doesn't delegitimize or nullify the feeling of large numbers of Cornish people that they do have a special identity apart from England. (One that evidently doesn't require a Cornwall Act for its existence.) I'm completely happy to work with you, or anybody else, on producing NPOV language to describe the complicated legal/ethnic/cultural status of Cornwall; but I'm afraid you will not be able to just shut out other sides of the controversy. QuartierLatin1968 04:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The artice already states Cornwall is an administartive and ceremonial county of England in the table at the top, and the English counties template. Therefore it is correct that this is the opening paragraph. We can't simply add in any conspiracy theories to main articles when the cannot be proved. There is no complicated legal status of Cornwall, it is governed as part of England under the British Parliament. End of story Astrotrain 16:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain wrote; "There is no official source that confirms the view that the Duchy has rights over the county of Cornwall"

• Wrong, the Duchy charters successfully used in case law, see above, confirmed that the Duchy has rights over the whole of Cornwall. A situation again supported some what be the Kilbrandon report.
• The Duchy has bona vacantia rights over all of Cornwall.

"It is fact that Cornwall is: considered a county of England"

• By who? Many in Cornwall when asked -is Cornwall a County or a Duchy?- will respond that -it is a Duchy- It is a popular opinion in Cornwall. Now you seem to be providing the current governments and Duchy's opinion however i don't think it is Wikipedias position just to report on issues taking only the current governing regimes version of events and states as truth.

"elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays taxes to the UK Exchequer, is governed by British legislation"

• As i have said Calais and Ireland once returned "MPs to the British / English Parliament, payed taxes to the UK / English Exchequer, where governed by British / English legislation" but they where never part of England. Additionally any profits the Duchy makes from the territory of Cornwall via for example bona vacantia, go through the Duchy's Exchequer, the Duke does not have to pay tax on this.

"Cornwall is not referred to separately in any constitutional legislation"

• Track down the 'original Latin versions of the Duchy charters read them and see what you think, remembering that the office of Duke was created in order to replace the office of Earl, the Earl as viceroy governed Cornwall, Devon as an example of an English shire county did not experience this.

"The Duchy of Cornwall, by their own admission, is a property holding company, governed by Acts of the UK Parliament, the income of which is the property of the British monarch's eldest son. Any legal privilege of the Duchy is done so by the command of Act of Parliament"

• It is favourable for both the Duke and current government (though i would say not for the Cornish people) to pursue this story. A private property holding company that can appoint the sheriff of Cornwall, claim right of wreck in Cornwall, has bona vacantia over all Cornwall and does not have to pay tax, sounds like a good deal to me.

"The Duke of Cornwall does not live in Cornwall"

• And?

"the Duchy owns less than 4% of the County"

• Private estates that change nothing when considering the original purpose of the Duchy which is as a body of governance. Why can the Duke summon his own exchequer and have an attorney general (who does not have to be a member of the bar). These positions though little used today seem to be the arms necessary for a body of governance and a bit pointless for a just an honorary title or private estate. If you then conclude that the Duchy was a body of governance for Cornwall but is no longer you must ask when did this change occur and which legal documents or acts parliament relate to this change.

• Now i don't think that this article should say 'Cornwall is a Duchy'. However as i said a popular opinion in Cornwall maintains that Cornwall is a Duchy and for all the "facts" that support the private estate and county description there are also "facts" that call this description into question. This main page should reflect this and then direct readers to another page that provides more detail. Fulub le Breton

With Anonymous's final point, I absolutely agree. Wikipedia is simply not going to arbitrate the final legal status of Cornwall. The most it can do is describe the dispute. A propos, I've requested an article on the Constitutional status of Cornwall, which is long overdue, and where people can lay all of these arguments out – the Stannaries, the devolutionists in the Cornish Assembly mould, the Just-an-Ordinary-County position, the various approaches to the Duchy. I'm sure we can find plenty of raw material for such an article just on archived wikipedia talk pages! (Not all of it sourced, unfortunately.) In the meantime, I maintain, this article should give a brief, even-handed description, along these lines:

Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow or occasionally Curnow) is the part of Great Britain's south-west peninsula that is west of the River Tamar. Also associated with Cornwall are the Isles of Scilly. Cornwall is administered as a county of England, although there is some controversy over the constitutional status of Cornwall, and a Cornish independence movement seeks to gain the area greater autonomy. Cornwall's motto is "One And All".

How does this sound? QuartierLatin1968 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is silly to say "administered as a County of England", when all maps etc show it geographically in England (at the end of the day, it is not a seperate country, it is not a colony or dependancy, therefore it is part of a country (UK). The rest of the article places Cornwall as "an adminsitrative and ceremonial county of England", and it is in the County of England template. It is essential to say that it is a County of England, even if this is disputed. But the dispute should only be mentioned briefly, as I can find no official mention of any dispute over cornwall. Astrotrain 20:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• • The test case is Tim Saunders (taking the position of the Stannators) against the Crown (under the Major government – or was it still Thatcher then?) over the poll tax. I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand, the revived Stannary Parliament claimed authority to annul the poll tax, so Tim Saunders, figuring he's under Stannary jurisdiction, doesn't pay it, and he gets taken to court. The case was thrown out, so we don't have the satisfaction of a definitive legal judgement.
  • I don't think anybody disputes that Cornwall's part of the UK. If it's a separate country from England, then it's a fifth home country. And this isn't necessarily a question that could be settled on the basis of official administrative practice. In 1950, was Merionethshire really treated any differently from Nottinghamshire by the government? The only way you'd know it was Wales not England was if you went there and asked people on the ground. And many people on the ground in Cornwall today do seem fiercely certain that they're not in England.
  • Cornwall is part of de facto administrative England, I'll agree with that. For that reason, it just makes sense pragmatically to include the English county template and the rest of it. Mind you, stannators and their supporters will argue that Cornwall is treated as just another county in contempt of the actual legal standing to which it is entitled. I'm in no position to give much of an opinion on the subject, and as I say, Wikipedia is not the authority to arbitrate the dispute. QuartierLatin1968 02:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to add yet more fuel to the fire .... From where I am standing, it does seem to be that Cornwall was once a seperate politcal entity from England. In 936 the Tamar river was agreed upon as the border between England and Cornwall. Would it not be more correct to say that Cornwall is part of Britain or the UK but not England?

And I don't agree at all with Astrotrain's point that because Cornish people speck English and share many English cultural points that that makes them English. My people (the Irish) do the same yet we have never claimed to be English, even when ruled (abysmally, at best ...) from Westminister.

Furthermore, leaving aside the agruments of County Vs. Dutchy (which fascinates me), such things as these are rarely decided in matters of law but at a more emotive leval in people's hearts. If most Cornish people see themslves as seperate political unit from England (yet still within the UK .... or not!) what's the problem? Vive la differenceFergananim. 23:37, 6 Feb. 2005.

• The difference between the Irish and Cornish is that Ireland is/was a seperate politcal entity from England, joining the UK as a home country under the Act of Union 1800. Ireland has never been considered a part of England, although the rulers of England ruled the area. Cornwall became part of England through conquest/amalgamation. It is the case that some people in Cornwall do not wish to be English, would like automony or independence, but they are still English, subject to the laws of England and Wales, governed by the English courts. Likewise, I am not giving an opinion on whether Cornwall should be a part of England, I am just saying it clearly is. Astrotrain 21:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Can you provide the date for this "conquest/amalgamation" please? Bearing in mind that the 19th century court case, that you again choose to ignore, clearly describes Cornwall as a Duchy not a County and as extra terratorial to the English Crown. It appearers clear to you because you like most others have been mislead as to the history of these isles. Wales was conquered and officially incorporated into England, but that does not mean Wales is England. No such official incorporation of Cornwall into England exists on record. The creation of the Earldom and then Duchy really only point to the fact that Cornwall was considered apart from England, a client state, but a state none the less.

If you want to argue that between Athelstans victory over the Cornish in 936 and the Norman invasion of 1066, Cornwall became a shire (county) of Wessex (later to contribute to the formation of England), then you will need to address the following points.

Of a cultural nature.

• Cornwall would have spoken Cornish, with Saxon being a tiny minority.
• From this period nearly only Cornish pottery is found in Cornwall.
• The Cornish had different measurement systems than the Saxons at this time.
• Cornwall showed a very different type of settlement pattern than Saxon Wessex
• Places continued (even after 1066) to be named in the Celtic Cornish tradition not Saxon tradition.
• Saxon architecture is very rare in Cornwall.

On a legal Front

• Cornish religious institutions at this time paid no Saxon land tax.
• Cornish industries like fishing and tin paid no Saxon tax.
• Vast ares of Cornwall paid no Saxon land tax.
• Only a very small tribute was paid to London, the rest probably going to the native Celtic ruler.
• There is next to no evidence of Saxon manorial law in Cornwall at this time. Cornish law was probably in operation.
• There is next to no evidence of Saxon moots, Saxon justice, centres of Saxon administration or the collection of Saxon customary dues in Cornwall.
• The Normans then created the Earldom of Cornwall and governed it with a viceroy (colonial governor), England on the other hand was governed directly by the King. Cornwall was therefore treated as part of an empire but separate from England.
• Cornwall has never been a shire and indeed had shires of its own.

"""John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou confirmed the aforesaid, and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaid""" Treaty of Bretigny 1360.

• It is clear from this address that refers to nations of Europe not counties of England, that when Richard was viceroy (1227-72) Cornwall was not part of England. If Cornwall had been part of England at this time it would have been incorrect to devise such an address. It would be like saying Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Scotland, the latter half being redundant because Scotland is part of the United kingdom.

Finally it is you POV that we are English. I have a British passport, i recorded my ethnicity as Cornish on the 2001 census (quite properly) and our children can record themselves as Cornish as opposed to English at school. Bretagne 44 9/2/05

Hello again. Might I state for the record that Ireland becomeing part of the UK in 1800 was only achieved by bribes in several cases, and because those who wished to see it occour were representative of a minority in Irish society. We never wished to join, did not we to be merely 'a home country' and were happy to part.

Now, to the matter which here concerns us: I think to convince me that Cornwall is indeed part of England you need to fully debate the case of The Crown Vs. Harrisson (1856) and its subsequent findings. Hand on heart, I cannot see the case of Cornwall being part of England as being proven. Part of Britain, yes, and the UK, yes again; but England?

Conquest or amalgamation really only counts if the people accecpt it. Anglo-Saxon rule of England ended in October 1066; yet the people of Cornwall still see themselves as linguisticly, culturally and ethnicly distinct. Added to that I honestly have yet to see any legal basis for Cornwall as part of England.

A further point (and if you don't mind I'll quote you):

• "Cornwall cannot veto British legislation, it elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays British taxes, is administered by a County Council established by British legislation. Any notion of independence is dillusion. The Duchy of Cornwall is established by British legislation, and has no bearing on the geographical area known as Cornwall. Astrotrain 14:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

All well and good, but what is the relationship between being British and England? Is not Westminister based in England? Don't Scotland and Wales have their own national assemblys? Why should paying taxes and sending MPs to a British Parliment (as Cornwall is of course part of Britain) make it part of England?

Lads, this is getting to be real fun! We ought to meet up for a few pints one of these nights! Fergananim

Whence county was gradually adopted in English ( scarcely before the 15th century ) as an alternative name for the shire, and in due course applied to similar divisions made in Wales and in Ireland, as well as the shires of Scotland, and also extended to those separate parts of the realm which never were shires, as The Duchy of Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland.

Part definition of the term County. Complete Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044. Bretagne 44 26/2/05

Politics and language

'Although the Cornish people have always had their own distinctive culture, identity and language'.

Perhaps this was the case hundreds of years ago, but it is not the case today.

The sentence is misleading and is from the point of view of Cornish nationalists rather than NPOV. It does make it explicit that today there are very little/no real differences in culture and identity of the cornish people from the rest of England and the language is virtually extinct - spoken by 3,500 out 508,412 cornish people (0.68%). Deus Ex 22:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your own experience is POV. They do have a distinctive culture, but how distinctive is arguable. The language isn't dying out, it's resurrecting itself.

links

It seems like a couple of the external links from this page are very low quality resources compared to the extremely large amount of quality, relevant Cornish interest sites out there. Cornwall ranks 3 or 4 in the DMOZ for number of sites in county and I could name at least 10 sites that are quality resources off the top of my head. I'm not going to point out which links I'm referring to as I think they are fairly obvious - they seem to be light on information and heavy on advertising. I'm sure one is a scrape of the DMOZ. I'm not sure of the process to remove spam from Wikipedia and am not sure if this is the right place to bring it up. However, if I can't figure it out it seems reasonable to edit it myself and wait for a response!

Sorry, got too impatient: Removed external (IMHO spam) links - www.plymouthcity.com/Directory/Cornwall/index.html Cornwall Web Directory and www.thereabouts.co.uk/cornwall/ I guess they should be removed from here aswell! I will however put up some quality resources of which there are many (not self-interest) in the near future

I'm not sure if http://www.csep.co.uk/ is a particularly valid link so I have removed it. It isn't really general (or relevant) enough for this page. 81.5.173.1

I have added the following links recently

• Cornwall County Council (http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/) See a Cornish Time Line
• The Institute of Cornish Studies (http://www.institutes.ex.ac.uk/ics/)
• Real Cornwall (http://telematics.ex.ac.uk/realcornwall/index.asp) Explores the themes of Food & Drink, People & Places, Sports & Games and Arts & Media.
• Combined Universities in Cornwall (http://www.cuc.ac.uk/)
• Cornish Heritage (http://www.cornish-heritage.org/index.html)
• Cornishnews (http://www.geocities.com/cornishnews/) The news in Cornish
• Cornish history by Dr Mark Stoyle (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/) Look for The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?
• The Trevithick Society (http://www.zawn.freeserve.co.uk/) A charitable organisation involved in Industrial Archaeology and the industrial past in Cornwall
• The London Cornish Association (http://www.londoncornish.co.uk/)
• Kernewek lowender (http://www.kernewek.org/index.pl) South Australia's Kernewek Lowender - the world's largest Cornish Festival
• Cornish World (http://www.cornishworldmagazine.co.uk/) Cornwall's biggest independent magazine
• Cumpas (http://www.cumpas.co.uk/index.php/) A charitable organisation which aims to protect, research and promote traditional Cornish music

There is much room for links to Cornish societies and associations around the world and links to Cornish sporting groups, environmental groups etc. Bretagne 44 8/2/05

Roman name

Does anybody actually use the Roman name? It's already mentioned in the history section, is it really notable enough to go in the introduction? --Joe D (t) 12:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is of some interest as many pre Tudor maps of Britain clearly show Cornubia marked as one of the nations of Britain along with Anglia, Scotia and Wallia. Cornubia is used to describe Cornwall in all the Duchy charters and other legal documents produced in Latin. Fulub le Breton

Yes, which justifies its inclusion in the history section. This is an encyclopedia though, not a history textbook, what justifies its inclusion in the introduction? --Joe D (t) 16:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very true the "Latin" name Cornubia is not used currently and maybe you should move it to the history section. I does deserve inclusion on the history page however because it enables users to read old maps of the isles. Final point, the Duchy charters which are very much still law today use the Latin Cornubia. Fulub le Breton

Cornubia is still occasionally used in the same way that Caledonia/Scotia, Hibernia, Cambria and Albion are used... i.e. poetically or romantically. It is uncommon, though not unheard of, to see 'Cornubian' used as an adjective. Curnow is an alternative Cornish spelling for the native name, and I am about to include that.

Religion

I think more could be said about the religious development of Cornwall. At the moment the article just contains information on Celtic Christianity. Catholicism and Methodism have both played a big part in Cornwall and mention of the prayer book rebellion of the south west is surely warranted. Fulub le Breton

Language

The main page for Cornwall and the Cornish Language page contain conflicting information about the numbers of Cornish speakers today and their levels of fluency. 3500 fluent speakers on the language page. 2000 speakers of which 100-150 are fluent on the main page. So what is it to be? Fulub le Breton

It's unfortunately not so simple. Estimates vary wildly, and who is an actual speaker is subjective. The source should be given.

Cornish identity and History

I have juts added information on recent developments in the recognition of Cornish identity (nationality or ethnicity). Feel free to reword or improve on my text. Bretagne 44 3/02/05

I think a lot more needs to be said about Cornish history, The Earldom, Duchy and rebellions all spring to mind. Fulub le Breton 8/2/05

Other culture

A bit of reorganising plus the addition of information on Rugby and Cornish food. Bretagne 44 5/02/05

Cornish people Cornish ethnicity

I would like to invite any knowledgeable individual to create a page along the lines of this page Irish people or this page English (people) but for the Cornish.

It would be a page that describes the ancestors of the Cornish (Celts and Germanic's), it would explore in more depth the heritage of Cornish family and first names and it would be a good place to explore the controversial topic of Cornish ethnicity or nationality. It would provide more room for the above subjects and draw together information that at present is scattered across a number of different pages therefore lightening said pages. At present there is just the List of Cornish people which is insufficient, some on the list could well have considered themselves English or British and not Cornish in the national sense. The more i work on Cornish subjects the more it becomes clear that one page for the county and one for the language are insufficient to explore all the subjects that arise around the words Cornwall and Cornish. Bretagne 44 8/04/05

"Many residents think of Cornwall as a separate home nation...."

This is misrepresentation. Less than 10% of the Cornish population signed the petition for a devolved assembly. How is that "many"? By the way, the article should mention 41,650 Cornish people signed the petition, not 50,000. The rest were from outside Cornwall [1] (http://www.senedhkernow.com/petition.html). Deus Ex 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)