Talk:Cornwall/Archive 4

message: In top right of main page there are two conflicting lists of populaton, density and admin pop. - which list is correct?
:The one in the text appears to be from a 2003 source, and the one in the info box is a 2004 estimate, so they are either both right, or neither are right depending on your point of view!  Mammal4 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Some Facts about The Duchy 
There is an obvious contradiction between what is officially presented, and publicly perceived, as "the Duchy of Cornwall" and what the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall submitted as conclusive evidence to support the Duke's right to the ownership of the foreshore, around Cornwall, between high and low water mark back in 1856-57.   This was in a case of private arbitration between the Crown and the Duchy where the Duchy successfully showed title to 'the soil of Cornwall'.  
Some of these 'official' views are given in the 650th Anniversary publication   "The Duchy of Cornwall"(1987) where we see such incredible statements as : 
"To confuse matters even more, the Duke owns more land outside Cornwall than he owns in the county.   His Duchy is not the county and the county is not the Duchy....... the largest part of the Duchy that the visitor is ever likely to see is the beach upon which he disports himself.   The Duchy owns less than three per cent of Cornish land, only twelve per cent of its total land holding." 
Crispin Gill, Editor, Introduction p.14 
and : 
" Many people confuse the Duchy with county, but the two had, and have, different identities; only about seventeen per cent of the land surface of the county has ever belonged to the Duchy." 
Graham Haslam, Archivist 1987 Chapter 1, p.24 
who also says on page 21 : 
" On a spring day in 1337 Edward III created the first English duchy.   It was accomplished with all the solemnity and dignity which could be mustered;   the King proclaimed the charter before the nobility and commonality assembled in open Parliament making his son and heir, Edward of Woodstock, Duke of Cornwall.   The origins of the Duchy are not, as are so many other important English institutions, obscured by the mists of time.   It did not grow, develop or evolve from modest arcane features.   On 16th March 1337 it did not exist;   on 17th March it did."  
The Royal Duchy of Cornwall did evolve, in fact, by augmenting the existing Cornish Earldom and this was at a date prior to the 16th March 1337.   The First Duchy Charter, inappropriately called 'the Charter of Creation', dated 17th March 1337, does, in fact, refer to the Duchy as having already been created - as does a Patent creating the new Earl of Salisbury dated 16th March 1337 - and even states when : 
"..being in our present Parliament, convened at Westminster, on Monday next after the feast of St. Matthias the Apostle last past, ...." 
The Officers of the Duchy, during the arbitration over the foreshore, estimated this to be: 
"The particular time of this investiture, that is to say, that it preceded the 1st Duchy Charter, and was on some day between the 24th of February, the Feast of St. Mathias, and the 16th of March, is demonstrated by the patent of creation of the Earl of Salisbury, who, with others, was at that time created Earl in honour of the Prince, as stated by Lord Coke." 
The original Act of creation is no longer in existence but has been referred to extensively in later Acts of Parliament.   The following extract, from these references, is very significant, 
"...that the County of Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the eldest sons of the Kings of England... without being given elsewhere".
 
The Officers of the Duchy reinforced this point with the following item - 
"Now in a Charter granted to the first Duke by the King who created the Duchy, we find part of the preamble as follows :- 
"Considerantes itaque qualiter Comitatus Cornubiæ jam Ducatus Cornubiæ nuncupatus magnam a jam diu suorum jurium sustinuit sectionem et desiderantes ipsum Ducatum redintegrare et ejus jura recolligere sic dispersa."
 
There are two conclusions to be drawn from these words, strongly confirmatory of what has been previously stated ;   first, that the Comitatus Cornubiæ had a different meaning from the expression County of Cornwall, taken as a division of the kingdom for the purposes of civil government ;   the latter portion of the sentence quoted, as well as the subject-matter of the Grant, is entirely inconsistent with such a construction, but entirely consistent with the view that the comitatus was a great Honor or Lordship, from which properties and rights (not in Cornwall) previously appertaining to it had been severed.   And, secondly, which is the main point in this part of the case, that the Ducatus Cornubiæ entirely corresponded with what had been the Comitatus Cornubiæ in every respect except in name."  
The First Charter was only intended as an enumeration as to what comprised the Duchy in terms of possessions and rights for the reason it states: 
".. lest hereafter in any wise it should be turned into doubt, what or how much the same Duke, .... ought to have in the name of the Duchy aforesaid, we have caused all things in kind, which we will to pertain to the same Duchy, to be inserted in this our charter...." 
The enumeration was deemed to be necessary because some earlier grants of certain rights and possessions away from the whole could be construed as a severance from the former Earldom and thus the simple phrase of : 
"Earldom now a Duchy"
 
was not considered sufficient in itself to prevent the existence of any 'doubt'.   Hence the purpose of the enumeration was to reaffirm and bring all things back together again under the honor of the Duchy.
 
It should be noted that the first item to be enumerated in the first Duchy Charter was, in fact, the "vicecomitatus" of Cornwall "with the appurtenances" and the right, according to custom, of appointing the Sheriff of Cornwall.   This can only be construed as confirming the grant of both the territory and Government of Cornwall to the Duke.   In both the Duchy and the former Earldom the Sheriff was the officer of the Earl or Duke and not the officer of the King as is the case elsewhere.   The next enumerations identified the rights, revenues and possessions within Cornwall followed by those things which were located outside Cornwall and yet still part of this territorial honor. 
All things enumerated were inextricably linked to the honor known as the Duchy of Cornwall with the words: 
"...we do by this our present charter, for us and our heirs, annex and unite to the aforesaid Duchy, to remain to the same for ever, So that from the same Duchy they may at no time be in anywise separated..." 
The reason for this limiting clause was in order to protect the Duchy from future predatory monarchs.   How about predatory parliaments? 
There are those who have argued that because items 'were enumerated' that only those items specifically mentioned actually passed to the Dukes.   This was more than adequately shown, by the Officers of the Duchy not to be the case!   The Duchy Rights to the Foreshore being a clear example of the fallacy of such a superficial view and one which - together with the first item enumerated - is also immediately at odds with the bizarre views expressed in 'the anniversary' publication regarding how much land was ever a part of the Duchy!   How can the British (alias English) Government, and others, say that the Duchy is only a landed estate and has nothing to do with what they, and their puppets, ignominiously refer to as 'the county'?   Perhaps the Duchy, and the Crown, Establishments could be invited to make a public statement about this and other matters within this site? 
 
The 2nd and 3rd Duchy Charters had the effect of transferring away from the Crown all Crown rights and fees in Cornwall which, for what ever reason, had not been parcel of the former Earldom, except those classified under Royal Jurisdiction (treason, ecclesiastical patronage etc.), and which clearly illustrates the full extent, and intent, of the Honor known as 'The Duchy of Cornwall'.   The Officers of the Duchy, in 1856, had no hesitation in stating that the Duke was   "quasi-sovereign within his Duchy".   A Duchy which they so adequately revealed was the whole territory of Cornwall.   Contrary to the official propaganda, and high level lies from those who still dominate us, the Duchy is 'Cornwall' as shown and not merely the private estates of the Duke.  
The reasons for the creation of the Honor of Duchy of Cornwall were given, inter alia, as: 
"the restoration of old ones", 
viz. the Honor (of Cornwall)
 
"over which a while ago Dukes for a long time successively presided as chief rulers" ..... 
and 
"desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honors". 
Another reason given being that 
"... lands subjected to our dominion, may be more securely and fitly defended against the attempts of enemies and adversaries......" 
It must be noted that the king was not referring to the time when Cornwall had its most powerful Earls, Richard and Edmund, but referred to the time prior to the subjugation of Cornwall by Athelstan. 
The Officers of the Duchy were able to bring to the arguments many extant documents which clearly indicate that the focus of the grant was not merely a collection of estates but was a territorial grant as is obvious from the following extract from their evidence: 
"About 60 years after the creation of the Duchy, we find in the Charter of 1st Henry IV. to Prince Henry, the eldest Son of that King, as follows : 
"We have made and created Henry our most dear first-begotten Son, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester, and have given and granted, and by our Charter have confirmed to him the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, that he may preside there, and by presiding, may direct and defend the said parts.   We have invested him with the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, per sertum in capite et annulum in digito aureum ac virgam auream juxta morem."  
A further point of constitutional interest and importance, already mentioned under 'Cornish Milestones' is the legal fact that Cornwall was considered as distinct from England and the Crown.  It is sad indeed that a Cornish historical perspective is wilfully denied by Anglocentric retrospective superficiality.  Likewise, to call the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall an "English institution" based, as it was, on contemporary continental lines, or alternatively to reflect Cornwall's status prior to subjugation, is arrogant and dismissive. 
The Duke of Cornwall within his Duchy was a vassal of the English king.   This corresponded with the period when Norman kings of England - as Dukes of Aquitaine - were vassals of the king of France.  This did not imply that Aquitaine was anything other than Aquitaine.   Are we to assume, also, that the Principality of Wales is an "English institution".   It is an overwhelming fact of history that Cornwall, as a non-English 'British Province', whether as the Earldom of Cornwall or the Dukedom of Cornwall, never merged in the Crown in the absence of an Earl or Duke but was, and is, held 'ut de honor' [Comitatus or Ducatus] 'in manu regis existente'. 
 
Another point worthy of mention and discussion - and there are many! - is the statement, in the aforesaid 'anniversary' publication, that: 
" Richard's son, Edmund,succeeded to the Earldom in 1272, but he died eight years later and the estates according to law reverted to the Crown.." 
Graham Haslam, Archivist 1987 Chapter 1, p.23. 
This is incorrect on three important points! 
1 - Edmund actually died in the 28th year of the reign of Edward the First (1272 - 1307) - "on the morrow of St Michael, in the 28th year ending".   This makes Edmund's death circa AD 1300 and, in truth, twenty eight years as Earl of Cornwall. 
2 - it was the 'Earldom of Cornwall' - NOT "the estates" - which passed to Edward the First. 
3 - that whilst the territorial possession did pass to the King "according to law" this should not be construed as simply "reverted to the Crown" like some homeless escheat.   It passed to the King as a true inheritance because the King was Edmund's next heir (his cousin) - a line of succession which prevailed up to the creation of the Duchy.   The whole of the archivist's statement gives a clear indication of the subjectivity and questionable treatment given to the subject! 
 
The following extracts from 'the Arbitration' show the preamble to, and the conclusions drawn from, an analysis of the Duchy Charters and other relevant material by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall as part of their Preliminary Statement. 
"But the full and real effect of the Duchy Charters themselves will be more satisfactorily and conclusively shown by considering the construction put upon them in early times, not only in grants and legal proceedings in which they are recited or noticed, but also by the Courts of Judicature and the Legislature of the Country." 
The analysis proceeds...... 
"In conclusion, it is submitted that the facts and authorities before referred to are sufficient to establish,- 
1st. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects, as distinct from England. 
2nd. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.  
3rd. 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 greater extent than had been enjoyed by the Earls.  
And lastly. That the Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely 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. 
Duchy of Cornwall, 
Somerset House, 
May, 1855." 
As these extracts are taken from the 'Preliminary Statement' of the Duchy - an arbitration that spanned some three years! - the following extract from the Duchy should serve to show that subsequent argument strengthened, rather than weakened, the claim on behalf of the Dukes of Cornwall. 
"Since this subject was under the consideration of the Law Officers and Counsel of the Duchy in the spring of last year, further searches have been made amongst the ancient records of the Country, which have resulted in the production of some additional evidence, which seems materially to support the conclusions previously arrived at, and has enabled the Duchy Officers to present the Case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall in a more precise and definite form than was done in the Preliminary Statement prepared in the spring of 1855. 
Duchy of Cornwall, 
Somerset House, 
12th February, 1857." 
 
In a spate of letters to the Editor of the West Briton newspaper, September 2000, to which reference was made to this particular case of Arbitration, there was a letter from a particular gentleman whose quality of life seems to be totally dependent upon trivialising the Cornish Debate.   He is the pioneer of fallacious argument and ludicrous statement and offers nothing but the opportunity to maintain an ongoing dialogue.   On this occasion he makes the comment: 
"The actual judgement as to the precise grounds of the Duchy's success" 
namely, in the arbitration over foreshore rights - 
"is never quoted." 
and poses the mischievous question: 
"I wonder why?" 
My offer to be allowed to enlighten him by quoting from the actual award of Sir John Patteson's arbitration on 10th June 1857 was not printed but is included here for the benefit of others: 
"...I have carefully considered all the Statutes, Charters, documents and cases which have been produced or referred to by the Counsel for the Crown and for the Duchy ; and also all the arguments which they have adduced...  ...I am of the opinion and so decide that as between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall the right to the Minerals between High and Low Water marks has passed to and is vested in the Duke of Cornwall as part of the Soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy... " 
The lucrative nature of the ownership of the property had caused the Crown to make a predatory claim of prima facie right of ownership of the property.   The main thrust of the Duchy argument was - and I quote : 
"...It is contended, on the part of the Duchy, that this general prima facie right of the Crown has not application, as against the Duke of Cornwall, within his Duchy or County of Cornwall, and, consequently, not to the particular property forming the subject of the present question..."  
The Duke of Cornwall in his Foreword to the 650th Anniversary publication "The Duchy of Cornwall (1987)" states that "The Duchy is above all else a landed estate and will continue to be so". In my opinion the Rights of the Cornish to be seen to be Cornish - not English! - are implicit in the creation of the institution which gives him his title and it is a sad day indeed, for democracy, when a future king shows such little respect for the Rights of his subjects.   The constitutional chicanery which has hidden from view the true status of the Duchy of Cornwall has also wilfully removed the institution which enshrines our Cornish Rights, without affording any form of compensatory political accommodation. 
This is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue and some measure of redress and accountability must be demanded.  
Another independent glimpse of the Duchy as it 'do belong to be' is given to us by Richard Pearse within an essay on "The Ancient Duchy of Cornwall" contained within his book "The Land beside the Celtic Sea - Aspects of Cornwall's Past" (1983) [ or 0 907566 49 9].  The observation is concerning the establishment of the Prince's Council in 1343 and is as follows - my square brackets: 
"In 1343 the council quickly became a centralised system of government on similar lines to the King's Council.   It welded the widely spread lands into a closely-knit whole.   It was staffed by civil servants of high rank who were often trained in and drafted from the King's Exchequer and Chancery, the highest departments of state.   The functions of the prince's council were advisory and to a lesser extent legislative and executive.   Its ordinances had the effect of law within its territories. The council was flexible, and adapted itself to rule in the name of the prince the three distinct, separate and virtually independent territories: the earldom of Chester, the duchy of Cornwall and the principality of Wales, and eventually the fourth - the principality of Aquitaine.   Each was governed as a separate entity according to its ancient traditions and customs, each under the supervision and control of experienced civil servants.   Prince Edward thus became the direct ruler of large parts of England [sic], Wales and France.   His territories constituted individual states within the state. 
...This measure of autonomy has never been as great as it was during the first duke's lifetime.   It has disappeared, but a desire for a limited measure of autonomy has persisted ever since, backed by a strong tradition of an ancient Celtic cultural background.   This cultural background has tended to isolate Cornwall from the rest of England[sic].   Yet there has been no isolation from the outside world." 
 
Another aspect worthy of further consideration, given the dubious nature of the Crown's chicanery over Duchy Rights, is a claim made by the Duchy at the end of the 18th-century to appoint an Admiral for Cornwall.  The Crown offered 'an opinion' on the claim but, for some reason, the matter was not pursued further by the Duchy nor developed within the above arbitration because "...the fact can have little or no bearing upon the present question.". 
The relevance here is that the Duchy felt that they had a claim of right over the seas around Cornwall but not, presumeably, worth the effort of proving it. 
 
Considering that there was a principal focus during the 19th Century to diminish the integrity and impact of the Duchy of Cornwall, it does not require much of an imagination to appreciate that the last thing that the Crown, or Paliament, wanted was an in-depth legal debate into what comprised the honor known as the Duchy of Cornwall.   It is my opinion that the case of arbitration, referred to above, was contrived by the Crown in order to ensure a compromise which whilst giving - because it was known to be incontestable! - the award between high and low water marks to the Duchy, awarded the most beneficial portion - that of mining beyond the low water mark - to the Crown.   Had the whole matter been decided simply upon 'legal ownership' then it is most probable that both properties would have been found in favour of the Dukes of Cornwall in right of the Duchy.   The value, however, to the Cornish people was in the form and depth of the Duchy argument. 
Given that the 'official' view of the Duchy of Cornwall seems to be built upon rather dubious foundations and that this can be shown to have consequences which are sinister and repugnant to the rights of the Cornish people within their own territory, then there is an urgent need for an external agency to intercede on behalf of the Cornish people! 
With the inexorable tendency towards a form of British Republican State, it is imperative, therefore, that the real truth about the marginalisation - to use a euphemism! - of the Cornish people is subjected to the deepest possible academic and judicial analysis before Cornish Rights are irrevocably swept aside by 'English' political and constitutional change.   It is indeed ironic that the so-called 'Mother of Parliaments' should have learnt the art of democratic debate through the existence of the Duchy of Cornwall!! 
When did Cornwall join the English/UK parliament?
What special provisions were made for Cornwall as distinct entity?
Was not the joining of the government confirmation that Cornwall was to be ruled as, and remained as, a part of England?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bretagne 44 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duchy and County!

message: There is a LOT that could be included regarding the history of Cornwall from the sub-Roman period until it's Saxon subjugation and the medieval period. Should this information be contained on this page "cornwall" or on a seperate "kingdom of cerniw" page? Also, there still seems to be a lot of confusion as to the origin of the world "cornwall". There is a debate as to whether there was a Cornovii tribal group who were subordinate to the dumnonii or if the Kern prefix is a geographical name only referring to the peninsular's shape (like a "horn"). I notice that one of these theories has precedence at the moment without any discussion of the other theory, nor with any evidence to support it (there is one piece of evidence supporting the Cornovii theory which is a settlement name recorded in one Roman charter) James Frankcom 11:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on this page should be a summary of the most notable details of its history.  As an example, Dorset (which meets featured criteria) has four reasonable length paragraphs for its history section, mentioning the major facts from the first known habitation though neolithic, bronze age, roman, saxon, norman, late middle ages to modern.  This is accompanied by History of Dorset  which goes into much more detail and can be better structured and tied together than the section on the main page.  So, I would suggest putting details on History of Cornwall, and adding only the most important details to this page. Joe D (t) 03:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Cornwall

message: Extracted from a commission of the first Duke of Cornwall, 25 Edw. III to "John Dabernoun, our Steward and Sheriff of Cornwall greeting. On account of certain escheats we command you that you inquire by all the means in your power how much land and rents, goods and chattels, whom and in whom, and of what value they which those persons of Cornwall and England have, whose names we send in a schedule enclosed......!
Bretagne 44 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Duchy

message: "99.0% White, of which 6.8% Cornish"
I doubt the Cornish constitute only 7% of the population! --MacRusgail 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 6.8% is a British/English Nationalist POV - this is what they would like it to be. The fact is that for the first time in the 2001 UK Census, those wishing to describe their ethnicity as Cornish were finally permitted to have their own code number (06) alongside those for people wishing to describe themselves as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. There was an overwhelming lack of publicity surrounding the inclusion of the 2001 06 code, there was a lack of a clear tick-box for the Cornish option on the census and the Cornish needed to first deny being British in order to write "Cornish" in the field provided. The 6.8% figure should be removed as surveys show the figure to be nearer 45-55%. Bwizz 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ethnicity - The 6.8% Cornish figure is way off the mark. The fact is that most Cornish were not aware of the 2001 Census changes that permitted them for the first time to describe their ethnicity as Cornish and it was unclear if the "British" and "Cornish" options were available as there was no tick box for "Cornish".  Aztecy 10:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say bring on the Geordie tickbox! Enzedbrit 04:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: Dydh da, I have proposed the creation of a Portal for Cornwall. Please support this if you would. Link:  --Joowwww 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall WikiPortal

message: Aroberts, what do you think you are doing? Please address my following concerns:
*I require proof that the motto of Cornwall is "one and all".
*Why is the flag of Cornwall in the infobox. Other counties with flags (eg Northumberland mention it in the main text, just like this article. Mentioning it twice is redundant and unnecessary).
*What purpose does the flag of the Duchy of Cornwall serve? The Duchy is a private estate belonging Prince Charles.
*Why are you adding the irrelevant pan-Celtic map to the infobox. The purpose of the map there is to show where the country is in England (as we're dealing with an English county).
If you fail to co-operate, I'll be requesting assistance from your good friend User:VampWillow ;-) Telex 12:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi,  just to put my 2 pence worth in (and hopefully calm things down a little?) 
#What sort of proof do you want for the One and All moto?  Its actually quite a well known fact, not some obscure point of history, and is still used today.   It is plastered all over the Cornwall County Council website for starters,  on all their letterheads, on their coat of arms etc.  Here is a link from the CCC website (not the best example for you, but literally the first page that came up on Google when searching cornwall county council motto)  There are probably better references but I really don't have time at present and I leave it up to you to satisfy yourself 
# Flag in the info box - don't really have much of an opinion on this.  Yes its mentioned in the text, but part of the point of the infobox surely is as a summary of information for the reader who doesn't want to go through all of the text , and just wants a flavour?  Its not required, but does it do any harm?  put it in, leave it out surely makes no difference?
#Duchy of Cornwall - As I'm sure you are aware, the politics and history of Cornwall are more complicated than other parts of the country.  You are right, Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate, but there is also more to this as it links in with murky constitutional issue.  I agree, it probably shouldn't be on this page, as it is discussed at length on the constitutional status of Cornwall page to which there is a link already
#The Celtic nations map really shouldn't be displayed here - it IS non NPOV - and is covered on the celtic nations page.  Regardless of the validity of it, the ongoing constititional debate, or personal opinion, Cornwall is administered as a Country of England, and it should be presented as such here.
#NPOV - Pushing pro Cornish nationalist sentiment on this page is non NPOV.  However, so is pretending that Cornwall is exactly the same as every other county in England.  Cornwall shouldn't be promoted as an independent state on this page, but readers should at least be aware that there is a constitutional debate, a cornish flag and language through links to other pages where these topics are (neutrally) discussed.  Denying these points is also non NPOV Mammal4 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing by Aroberts 

message: Please read archives 1 & 2 - this has already been discussed at great depth.
# No other "county" has a recognised language that is funded by the government.
# No other "county" is widely recognised as one of six Celtic nations.
# No other "county" has an ongoing debate into it's constitutional status..constitutional status of Cornwall
# No other "county" was officially recognised as distinct on the 2001 ONS UK Census ( Cornish ethnic coding = 06)
# The St Piran flag is more commonly seen flying from flag poles across Cornwall than the Union flag or the St George's flag. 
# The St Piran flag is widely used at Cornish events such as the Cornish Gorseth and St Piran's Day and worldwide at Cornish gatherings such as the Kernewek Lowender by the Cornish diaspora.
# As pointed out, part of the point of the infobox is as a summary of information for the reader who doesn't want to go through all of the text and just wants a flavour.
Blaid 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornish flag infobox - info for Telex

message: The proposal to create a Portal:Cornwall has been accepted. To create the portal, please see Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions.--cj | talk 07:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Cornwall]]

message: After having looked here and elsewhere on Wikipedia it would seem to me that there is a faction within the Uk geography project to rob the United Kingdom of its legitimacy as a political entity (See discussion at Uk).  This seems to take the form of reverting mentions of the Uk to use of the home nation on lots of English/Welsh pages with no good reason, and in the case of Cornwall by POV pushing the England label and Flag on Cornish pages.  Yes Blaid makes some good points - I don't agree with all of them, and many can be argued to be misinterpretation of minimal historical documents that are available from the period (BTW, the Queen is actually the head of state for Cornwall as she is the Queen of England, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, the Duchy being a title given to her eldest like the Prince of Wales, to provide income).  Regardless of the legality of it, or the previous history, Cornwall is administered as a county of England.  Personally, the time to kick up a stink about this would be in 1888 when the local governement act meant that what was previously treated as a separate component of the Uk, was given county status (illegally or not, there is now 120 years of precedent, which counts for a lot in Uk law). These are the facts and should be reflected in the entry (the place for discussion of the constitutional status of Cornwall being Constitutional status of Cornwall).  However, to pretend that Cornwall isn't different, doesn't have a separate identity within the Uk, language, flag, culture etc is wrong and POV pushing in the extreme.  This obsession with consistency between county articles is ridiculous - Yes it is good that they all have a simmilar layout and style, with simmilar sectioning, but the Uk is not, like some other countries, a homogenous entity, and these regional differences should be respected and commented upon in the articles, not steamrollered out because they don't conform to the article template.  A lot of English counties have a motto, but I don't see people questioning the legigimacy these as they do on the Cornwall page - this sort of petty undermining of Cornish identity should have no place on Wikipedia! I've said my piece  Grrrr sometimes these people get me so cross! :)  Mammal4 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply and Support

message: As Mammal4 mentions there appears to be a clear case of POV pushing of the England label and flag on most Cornish pages.
The fact is Cornwall is administered as a county of England. There is also as mentioned an obsession by a few on here for consistency between county articles and in particular "county" info boxes. Some genuine Cornish contributions are termed as "vandalism" and are reverted immediately whilst other types of POV pushing remain untouched. Should not the Wikipedia "Cornwall page administrator" have a more neutral point of view  ?  
"Regional differences should be respected and commented upon in the articles, not steamrollered out because they don't conform to the article template. A lot of English counties have a motto, but I don't see people questioning the legitimacy of these as they do on the Cornwall page - this sort of petty undermining of Cornish identity should have no place on Wikipedia !"
1. With regards to the flag issue, please take a look at the pages for the US states - each one has the state flag at the top of the infobox.  The Council of Europe in Strasbourg is considering the Cornish case this year under the "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" and states that Cornish identity should be recognised and respected, not undermined or disregarded. The information I gave to Telex earlier provides evidence that Cornwall's identity is slightly different to other English "counties" -
#No other "county" has a recognised language that is funded by the government. 
#No other "county" is widely recognised as one of six Celtic nations. 
#No other "county" has an ongoing debate into it's constitutional status..see constitutional status of Cornwall 
#No other "county" was officially recognised as distinct on the Census 2001 Ethnic Codes ( Cornish ethnic coding = 06) 
#The St Piran flag is more commonly seen flying from flag poles across Cornwall than the Union flag or the St George's flag. 
#The St Piran flag is widely used at Cornish events such as the Cornish Gorseth and St Piran's Day and worldwide at Cornish gatherings such as the Kernewek Lowender by the Cornish diaspora. 
#As pointed out, part of the point of the info box is as a summary of information for the reader who doesn't want to go through all of the text and just wants a flavour. 
2. With regards to the Cornish external link deletions below by Joshurtree - these appear to have been selected at random but the reason given is that "WP is not a Wikipedia:External_links Web directory". Of course he is correct with this explanation, but a casual look at other Wikipedia pages shows long lists of external links - for example take a look at the pages for Bath, Nottingham, Leeds, Bradford, Devon or even New York ! Perhaps he should delete some of these ?
*Gorseth Kernow    
*London Cornish Association    
*Cornish Associations Overseas  
*The Institute of Cornish Studies    
*Campaign for a Cornish Assembly    
*Cornwall Commonwealth Games Association    
*Trelawny's Army - The Cornish Rugby Supporters' Club    
*TGG Kernow - Tyr-Gwyr-Gweryn means 'Land-Truth-People'    
*Cornish Population Trends since 1901    
*Cornish National Minority    
*The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?    
*The Cornish Assembly - Senedh Kernow    
*Cornish Assembly  Cornish Assembly Petition     
*Cornish Stannary Parliament    
*The Celtic League    
*The Cornish Language  Blaid 22nd May
:Blaid. All that does not affect the constitutional status of Cornwall. For the record, the government also did not recognize Cornwall as distinct in the 2001 census, it acknowledged that there are people self-identifying as ethnically Cornish - this has no implication for the constitutional status of Cornwall. For a similar example, see Jedi census phenomenon. Cornish identity is not affected by how this article is presented, be Cornwall a county or not. As many organizations recognize the Cornish ethnicity, this does not affect its constitutional status. --Telex 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Cornwall pages administration

message: Being that Cornwall is a Duchy, surely the flag that its people chose to use on its national day should be placed at the top of the page. The following pages are allowed a flag at the top and none of them are classed as Countries.
*Luxembourg a Grand Duchy.
*Principality of Sealand, a micronation. 
*Wales, Principality.
*Northern Ireland, a province of the United Kingdom.
*Jersey, a Bailiwick
*Guernsey also a Bailiwick. 
*Monaco Principality.
*Andorra Principality.
Erm - Ok - Luxembourg, Monaco and Andorra are independent countries like any other and obviously have flags. Jersey and Guernsey are independent. Wales and NI (which doesn't even have a flag) are nations of the UK officially recognised as such. How does that relate to Cornwall?
Having said all that, Cornish people, whether they live in a county or a duchy fly the St Piran's Cross all the time and are very proud of it as an identifier of their people and their homeland - it seems only appropriate that it appears at the top of the page - just as anyother area or people that has a popularly-used flag. Cornwall's status is really not relevant.
Esquimo 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid Cornwall is a county - how many other articles on counties do you know with flags in the infoboxes? Northumberland has a flag, as does Devon - there is no flag in the infoboxes there though. The Duchy of Cornwall is generally unrelated to the county this article is about - the duchy is a private estate belonging to the Prince's of Wales. --Telex 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  Wiki pages for the 26 régions of France pages use flags in their infoboxes. e.g. Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Bourgogne, Bretagne etc.. Are these French regions not like our Counties? Should the guidelines for England not be like those for France.? Why shouldn't any British County be able to put a flag there if they have one? see Flags of English subdivisions. (Just a thought) Talskiddy 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what I was trying to say. Which Wikipedia committee decided to ban all regional flags from infoboxes or from the top of Wikipedia region pages ? If regions or countries/counties wish to display their flags near the top of the page they should be free to do so as in the examples of the individual States in the US, eg Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas etc, or the regions of France as mentioned.  Perhaps a compromise would be to display the flag nearer the top of the article but not in the infobox such as the flag of Lincolnshire which is dangerously close to the top - perhaps it should be removed !! (Blaid 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually you are both right.  The Prince of Wales runs the Duchy as a private estate including his other holdings in other counties because it suits him to do so.  There are administrative savings to doing it this way, so in this sense it is a property company.  However, there are significant differences between the Duchy and "a private estate" which are covered on the Duchy of Cornwall page to do with unique statutory privileges, exemptions, powers, rights and authorities in Cornwall.  The Duchy also has certain obligations to Cornwall that you don't find with other property companies. In these senses the Duchy has more in common with the Crown Estate (which incidently does not have holdings in Cornwall) which could also be described as a private estate belonging to the Queen.  You might also want to look at Duke of Cornwall for more info on how the the Duchy of Cornwall is different to the Duchy of Lancaster which is also run as a property company. However, the Duchy of Cornwall has a separate definition as a branch of the crown.  This deals with constitutional rather than financial matters as described in the second half of the entry.  To quote concerning Cornwall "..any rights pertaining to the Crown generally in most areas of the country instead pertain to the Duke of the Duchy".  This is not written in some crusty old forgotten law from 500 years ago that nobody will take seriously, but in the 1998 Tamar Bridge Act.     It suits some on this page to ignore either half of this and only use one part of the definition to support their own arguments.  None of this however affects the fact that Cornwall is administered as a county of England. Regardless of the legality of the situation, that is the status quo. Mammal4 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case for the flag

message: I'm really quite disappointed with the discussion on this page - its unbalanced and doesn't actually go anywhere.  When I first heard about Wikipedia, I thought that it sounded like a great idea - the idea of articles being written through consensus and discussion by a sucession of writers, each with their own slant, but leading to an "averaged" article that cover all sides is a great concept, and I'm surely not the only person who contributes here that thinks so.  That there is no hierachy and that no editor is deemed "better" than anyone else also appealed to me.    The policies laid down by Wikipedia are also a useful set of guidlines with which to ensure civil and constructive contributions.  Additionally, The discussion page where ideas can be hammered out before adding them to the main article is a really useful concept.
The reality of my experience with editing, especially on Cornwall geography pages has been somewhat different.  I don't direct this to any one individual editor, it is more a general feeling about what I think is lacking on Cornwall related discussion, not just on this page.  I apologise if I inadvertently offend anybody, that is not my intention here, I just want to get some of this stuff out in the open, hopefully improve how the discussion process works here and gently remind people of the Rules and Etiquette that we are supposed to contribute under.
*There seems to be no civility - discussion is good, but rubbishing someone elses opinion in not helpful.  Yes I realise that sometimes it is rubbish, but there are better ways of addressing this. An example on this page would be the I couldn't be bothered, they were all old arguments or bollocks reply from one of the flag edits above.  Yes I realise that things written in text sometimes appear terser than actually meant, but some of this stuff is just rude.  There is an article on good Wikipedia etiquette here which explains why ignoring questions (which happens here a lot) and not apologising or conceeding points when appropriate is rude and doesn't help in the running of Wikipedia.  If anybody needs a further reminder I found another amusing (at least to me) article here which puts it more bluntly!
*There is no assumption of good faith.  The antiflag faction does not give the benefit of the doubt that some editors are trying to improve these articles.  Edits are often reverted without explaination or with sarcastic/rude edit history comments - this only antagonises people.  Yes I agree that some people probably aren't trying to improve articles (see below) but its a founding pillar of Wikipedia that you should at least assume at first that they are.
* Nobody is interested in broaching any consensus on any of the difficult Cornwall related topics (e.g this flag business, the England/Uk tagging of articles).  Some editors seem to take a proprietorial approach to these pages (i.e I'm right your wrong, its not even up for discussion), and also act as if they are somehow better or more qualified to edit than anyone else - we were all new editors once so can people please give the newbies a bit of a break and not be too hard on them when they make mistakes, please do not bite the newcomers! :)
*There is a lot of POV pushing by both sides.  It seems that anything that even remotly deals with Cornish identity is stamped all over and subject to a far greater burden of proof than simmilar material on other county pages.  I mean, for gods sake, why does the Cornish motto onen hag ol require extensive verification and referencing, whereas there are plenty of unchallenged mottos on the pages of other counties (where there isn't a constitutional debate).  Some of this stuff is really petty! I also found this other  interesting page that sums up how I feel about some of these edits :)  !  I wouldn't mind so much , but a lot of these editors don't actually contribute anything meaningful to the article content, but just sit and nit pick over the placement of a flag, or whether there should be a comma in line five or not! By the same token there are obvious Pro-Cornish POV edits who seem to delight in trolling on the discussion page, and don't contribute anything elsewhere - If you know about Cornwall, why don't you write something instead of picking!  :)  There is plenty of stuff that needs attention !
* There are too many lazy edits and nobody actually reads things before replying.  By lazy edits, I mean things like the huge list of facts posted about Cornwall's unique status, which on closer inspection are actually cut and paste from this website .  Although there are some interesting facts in here, they are lost because they were used out of context and don't answer the question at hand (which led to the list of So? responses that was posted afterwards).  These types of huge cut and paste postings that restate over and over previously mentionned info also encourages people not to read them anyway.  Yes I realise the irony of respoding to this with another huge post, but i promise its the last one I'll write - I'm fed up with the whole thing!)  Following on from that, to the same user that posted the huge plagerised list, can you please stop paraphrasing my comments in subsequent postings?  I appreciate that you are trying to make a point and might like the way that I've phrased something, but you use my sentences out of context and subtlely change their meaning - If you aren't eloquent enough to rewrite it in your own words then its probably best if you don't comment on that topic at all.  it also means people blur my (overlapping maybe, but distinct) opinions with yours and then verbally attack me for unhelpful actions taken by Cornwall hardliners.  (Just for the record - I have never removed the word England from any article(3.Cornwall Constitutional Status), despite my reservations that it is being used as a POV pushing tool.
Bah whats the use - I've had enough of this - I'm sure nobody will take any notice of this post anyway and just carry on as before, but at least I feel better for having ranted it off of my chest! Mammal4 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappointment with discussion on this page

message: As to the debate on the Cornwall page county V country.
Why not go for segregation, leave the wikipedia Cornwall county of England page and create the Celtic nation of Cornwall page.  You could take the constitutional status of Cornwall [] page as a starter and turn it into the Celtic nation of Cornwall page. There is already a Celtic Nations page so you would be just building on that.
The Cornwall EC and Cornwall CN page would then link to each other and other Cornish pages. This would achieve consensus provide an accurate description of Cornwall from the tow perspectives and solve this tiresome feud.Bretagne 44 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a fair idea - there is a difference between nation and a country and I think a lot of the arguments on this page stem from ignorance of the distinction.  Are you volunteering to set this up Bretagne? :)  I don't mind helping out, although I have my hands a little full at Penwith Wikiproject at the moment.  You would have to make sure that there was really obvious signposting from the top of this page, and probably a warning on the first paragraph - something like "the wording of the following paragraph has been the source of much controversy - please do not edit without first discussing on the talk page" as this issue crops up every 6 months or so with a different set of users (see here for starters) Mammal4 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Have a look at the two different pages for Bretagne and Brittany. Talskiddy 11:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see both good and bad points in this, so I won't support or oppose. Just take into account that such an article may qualify as a POV fork. --Telex 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely a sentence at the top of each article  explaining the difference between the two articles and linking between them (as with Bretagne and Brittanywould help with this potential problem?  I'll also make sure that the new page is POV policed properly too and doesn't become a nationalist enclave Mammal4 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a [[Celtic nation of Cornwall]] page

message: Please feel free to update the Cornwall portal, or to change it in any way - new information etc. I'm finding myself without much time to do it. --Joowwww 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall Portal Update/Help Request!

message: There was a request for references to support the international recognition of the Cornish flag in the main article.  I'm pretty sure that the flag is recognised outside Cornwall/UK but its not easy to find references to support this.  I googled "Flags of the World" and looked at the first couple of hits (I didn't have time to go deeper).  Both were American hosted sites I think.  Both had the Cornish flag on their site, so I added them as refs to the article.  Some of the lower hits didn't have the flag, but then only had flags of sovereign nations anyway (CIA factbook etc).  Does that answer the query?  I'm happy to discuss this.  Mammal4 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Cornish flag

message: Steinsky - please can you provide more descriptive edit summaries when you are reverting edits that you disagree with.  As I'm sure you know this is generally considered to be good Wikipedia practice.  I'm sure many regulars on this page will know why you've reverted it but newer editors will not. I realise it must be irritating to have to keep repeating yourself.   It generally helps to reduce antagonism if you at least explain what you are doing.
Tashtastic - Whilst I sympathise with what you are saying, it doesn't matter whether Cornwall was formally annexed or not, it is administered now as a county of England (legally or ilegally it makes no difference).  Cornwall County Council is not a front for the Cornish government.  This debate has being going back and forth for at least 3 years - it might help if you were to look in the achives at the top of this page to see what has been discussed previously before making any changes.  It has been suggested that an Historic Kingdom of Cornwall page be set up to distinguish some of these issues from the Cornwall main page, which is a description of the current English administered (legally or ilegally) region.  This would build on the infomration at Duchy of Cornwall and constitutional status of Cornwall.  Something simmilar has been done with Brittany to distinguish it from the French administered region of Bretagne.  This is a more effective way of getting your point across that reverting this page over and over again.
I hope this is useful, take care Mammal4 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits concerning Cornwall status in England

message: "Cornwall +(capital+city)" pulls up many more relevant hits on google (>100,000) than either "Cornwall +(administrative+headquarters)" or "Cornwall +(administrative+HQ)" (<1000).  This isn't unique to Cornwall, as I've tried it with other counties.  Does anybody know why the geography pages have been set up in this way? Mammal4 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Capital city" is never used in this way. The admin HQ is where the administrative headquarters are, which may or may not be the same as the de facto county town. The phrase "capital city" generally refers to countries. Owain (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't say capital is never used when referring to counties - in common speech it is used often in this way and the google hits are testement to that.  You make a good point though that Admin HQ and capital are not necessarily the same for all counties, which is justification enough as to why Admin HQ is used on the county pages (ie they're aren't refering to the same thing).  I suppose you could have a box for capital and Admin HQ, but I think it would look a bit stupid and isn't really necessary! Mammal4 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the phrase "capital" by itself may be used to refer to a county town, but not the compund phrase "capital city", given that not all county towns are cities. Owain (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital City vs Admin HQ

message: Should there be a Cornwall related stub ?  ok, we have a  for locations within Cornwall but what about Cornwall non-geo stubs, such as "List of Celts", for articles which relate to Cornwall or Cornish people ?  Please leave a comment here..
      Proposal for a Cornwall-related article Stub 
Pediac 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a Cornwall stub, see Cornwall stubs. To mark an article as a Cornwall stub, add  to it. I hope it is useful! DuncanHill 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall related stub 

message: :There is now a Cornwall stub, see Cornwall stubs. To mark an article as a Cornwall stub, add  to it. I hope it is useful! DuncanHill 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is now a Cornwall stub

message: Shouldn't the map be revised so that Cornwall is not dark green?
Anyone else agree ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:England#The_Duchy_of_Cornwall_is_not_really_in_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:England/Cornwall
Blaid 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That Cornwall is not part of England is beyond a fringe theory. As I recently said, until any other encyclopedias start presenting Cornwall as anything other than an English county, it will be undue weight to emphasise the constitutional question here. --Tēlex 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that England itself hasn't existed in any statutory fashion since the Act of Union 1707 (and before that had been a client kingdom of Scotland since 1606) I would argue that no map should show "England" at all, except in historical contexts.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Duchy of Cornwall is not really in England 

message: Is there a reason why we have two pages that talk about the duchy of Cornwall  here and here?  Although the name suggests that they cover different faces of the Duchy of Cornwall (as a property holding of Prince Charles, and as a once semi autonomous block of the UK) in reality they cover mostly the same information - wouldn't it be better for readers unfamiliar with this information to merge the two articles?  At the moment it just looks like a potential POV fork waiting to happen Mammal4 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two pages for the duchy

message: Well, I see this is NOT in fact being currently discussed at Talk:Cornish emigration., it has hardly been discussed at all and it appears that a consensus of three people have decided to change the name to Cornish emigration, start deleting links and redirecting pages.  The committee of three has decided that the Cornish diaspora of some 6-10 million people does not exist. May I refer you to Professor Philip Payton's books "Cornwall" and "The Cornish Overseas". The Cornish diaspora refers to Cornish emigrants and their descendants in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Mexico. The diaspora was caused by a number of factors, but due mainly to economic reasons and the lack of jobs in the 18th and 19th centuries when many Cornish people or “Cousin Jacks” as they were known migrated to various parts of the world in search of a better life. Should this be deleted also ?
This is being currently being discussed at Talk:Cornish emigration unless I imagined all those posts.  Please keep the discussion on that page and not here.  Nothing has been deleted, just the name of the page changed.  This was proposed back at the end of June, and nobody bothered to comment until the after the page was renamed.  As I have already said, I am happy to reopen the discussion and change it back if that is what the consensus is.  This is a discussion over the terminology used, nobody is denying that this movement of people happened.  Mammal4 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cornish diaspora]] page deletion and renaming

message: I've reverted the movement of text In the 20th century there has been an attempt to revive the Cornish language and as one of the six Celtic nations there has been some debate over the constitutional status of Cornwall (Some Cornish people refer to Cornwall as a Duchy and consider it separate from England). back to the first paragraph.  This was put in as a compromise a year or so back so that people can link to the constitutional status of Cornwall page if they want to read more on the topic, but don't have to wade through a load of stuff about Cornish independence if they don't want to.  If you look in the archives at the top of the page there was quite a lot of discussion about it at the time and it was deemed necessary to prevent further loading of the opening paragraph with Cornish nationalist sentiment, whilst maintaining a balance  Mammal4 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently moved text about constitutional status

message: As already stated, a large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and
   Revert warring over England/English vs United Kingdom/British. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English,  2001 Ethnic Codes,and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English. 217.134.75.62 09:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming conventions are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#UK geography terminology straw poll.  Please join the discussion there to define a United Kingdom-wide policy.  Noisy | Talk 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whilst what you say is true, I would make the following points; firstly, Wikipedia is not a forum for pro/anti Cornish nationalist debate. Secondly, the Cornish are a minority even within Cornwall and it may be that the majority population see things differently. I support the Sovereign State description simply as the inhabitants of the UK are generally culturally and historically similar with regional variances within constituent members. As Noisy says, the appropriate place to discuss this is at the place given above.LessHeard vanU 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert warring over [[England]] / [[English]] vs [[United Kingdom]] / [[British]]

message: I've removed the following paragraph which was added today. IMHO, it is mostly unsubstantiated nonsense.
:Geologically the coast of Cornwall cognates with its Celtic cousins in Wales, Brittany and Ireland. Cornwall, before the last European Ice Age was part of the same landmass as it's Celtic cousins, which explains the geological similarities. The Ice Age has a massive impact (literally) on Cornwall; it created the deep V-shaped and hanging valleys of the North coast, evident at the likes of Crackington Haven and Tintagel. After the Ice Age literally melted away, a huge slab of ice dropped into the Atlantic Ocean, causing a massive tsunami which hurtled towards the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. The consequences of this tsunami effectively created the modern day Celtic Sea, Bristol Channel and Irish Sea which literally cut Cornwall off from it's Celtic cousins. Stories of sugmerged lands are very common across the Celtic seaboard, and Cornwall is no exception. In the past, academics without scientific technology laughed off stories, such as Lyonesse as fairy tales. However, modern day technology has allowed geologists to conclude that many parts of Cornwall (and Ireland, Wales and Brittany) was indeed engulfed by massive tidal waves and lost to the sea. At Mount's Bay, towards Marazion and Penzance low tides reveal submerged traces of forests. The north-coast around Bude and Tintagel also has geological evidence of submerged forests. Cornwall's most famous lost land is Lyonesse which is a submerged triangle of land between Lizard Point, Lands End and the Isles of Scilly. The fact that the Isles of Scilly has the same granite mass as Lands End proves that Lyonesse is no fairy-tale, although, like most tales of the Celtic nations, has been somewhat embellished. Donegal Bay in Ireland and Cardigan Bay in Wales also display submerged forests at low tide. As, like Cornwall these aforementioned bays face westwards towards the Atlantic Ocean, it proves that the lost lands are no fairy tales, but real events that actually did happen.
--Portnadler 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsubstantiated nonsense 

message: I have rewritten the Physical Geography section. I felt that it had become a bit of a mess with all the recent edits. Some were unencyclopedic hyperbole and there was one anonymous editor who kept referring to features in Cornwall that were (allegedly) analogous to those in Wales, Brittany and Ireland. I suspect this was the work of someone with a nationalist political agenda, disguised as a geographer/geologist.
I have also made the section briefer, in the hope that we will eventually develop a whole new article on the Geology of Cornwall. I have therefore included a main article template to encourage us to do this.
Portnadler 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of Physical Geography section 

message: We are asked to populate the List of Villages.  Most of the placenames in the List of places are redlinks.  Can the two lists be drawn tgether, please?  Would it be an inducement to add stubs or full articles on all the places to have them listed by District Council area? Vernon White 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list is ridiculously long, and includes places that are no more than tiny hamlets. For instance, compare it with List of places in Devon. --Portnadler 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a purpose in having a comprehensive list. If you're googling Havosso also known as Halvasso you just find Estate Agents and other rubbish. However this tiny hamlet includes one large and distinguished building (the Sunday School) and an Outdoor Centre for young people.  Even if the link remains red, it is still going to be useful to someone, sooner or later. It would be useful (and better than Devon) if this places list had some indication of where the tiny hamlet is, map reference, civil parish or District Council area. I know WP is not a gazeteer, however.  --  217.44.240.201 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Villages in Cornwall and [[List of places in Cornwall]]

message: There is a problem with the location map on the Truro page, part of the map is hidden, can anyone fix it?
Many thanks...--81.156.77.41 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small problem 

message: Can anyone add to the list at "List of twin towns in the United Kingdom", arranged by County. 
List is currently:
*Bodmin –  Bederkesa, Germany;  Grass Valley, California;  Relecq-Kerhuon, Brittany, France 
*Constantine, Kerrier – Pont-Croix, Brittany
*Hayle – Pordic, Brittany 
*Helston – Sasso Marconi,Italy
*Redruth – Meriadec, France; Plumergat, France
*Penryn, Cornwall  – Audierne, Britanny
*Penzance – Concarneau, Brittany; Bendigo, Australia; and Nevada City, California.
*Redruth–  Plumergat et MeriadecBrittany, France and Mineral Point, Wisconsin 
*Launceston – Plestin-Les-Greves, Brittany
*St Ives, Cornwall – Camaret-sur-Mer, Brittany 
*Truro – Boppard, Germany; Morlaix, Brittany, France.
*Wadebridge – Langueux, Brittany, France
--Vernon White 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twin Towns in Cornwall

message: I have proposed the creation of a Cornwall stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/October for Cornwall related stub-class articles which do not fit the Cornwall geo-stub. DuncanHill 10:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea ! Gulval 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now created the Cornwall stub, and have started populating it - use  to add it to articles. I hope people find it useful! DuncanHill 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall stub proposal

message: *  [1] , Page 68.
*  [2] Payton, Page 68
*  [3] Payton, Page 68 
*  [4] Payton, Page 69
___
Hope this helps +++Vernon White (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we now need to come up with a paragraph to cover this stuff, using the sources we have hold of. If I lay down a draft here, could you adapt it and add references from Payton as necessary? qp10qp 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll try to get the referencing right!  ====Vernon White (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References on critique of "The Viking paragraph"

message: Why was this town removed? It is not important if it is major or not, just that it is a place of interest.--User:Filll 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I removed it because Smudgey placed it in the list of main towns. It is not a town or a main town it is a village - Polperro still appears further down in the list of Places of interest. Have a nice day! Talskiddy 19:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polperro

message: Mammal4 has created WikiProject Cornwall to improve and extend the coverage of Cornwall-related articles. Please visit, and sign up if you want to contribute. Thanks! DuncanHill 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Cornwall

message: the article says, in its first sentence, that Cornwall is
:"on the peninsula that lies to the west of the River Tamar." 
I know what this is getting at, but its clumsily put.  It seems to be a combination of two things that would make sense
:"on the tip of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain"
and
:"lies to the west of the River Tamar"
however, there's nothing west of the Tamar that isn't Cornwall (more or less), so saying it is "on the peninsula west of " is a bit odd, and implies other non-Cornwall things share the peninsula.  I'd also be hesistant to call Cornwall a peninsula in its own right, given the geography involved.  How does
:"constituting that part of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain west of the River Tamar"
sounds a replacement?  Morwen - Talk 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the peninsula 

message: Both this talk page and the article  appear to be getting a bit long. I suggest that some of the material in the article be farmed out to other linked articles. I also suggest some of this talk page be archived.--Filll 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length