Talk:Duchy of Cornwall

message: Added the following link
*Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

message: In 1780 Edmund Burke sought to curtail further the power of the Crown by removing the various principalities which existed.
… the five several distinct principalities besides the supreme …. If you travel beyond Mount Edgcumbe, you find him [the king] in his incognito, and he is duke of Cornwall …. Thus every one of these principalities has the apparatus of a kingdom …. Cornwall is the best of them…. 
Bretagne 44 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: I've unlinked some of the blue links as they lead to disambiguation pages or to the incorrect person;
*Attorney-General Charles Hall (disambiguaton)
*Surveyor-General Benjamin Tucker American
*Auditor Edward White (disambiguation) and Edmund Parker redirects to Ed Parker American
*Solicitor-General John Anstruther and William Harrison are both disambiguation pages
It's possible that one of the Anstruther's is the correct person. As for the others I could find the correct people. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offices

message: Did King George III enjoy the income from the Duchy between his coming-of-age on 4 June 1759 and his accession on 25 October 1760? Though he was Prince of Wales and heir-apparent, as a grandson (not son) of the Sovereign he was not actually Duke of Cornwall. 195.92.40.49 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George III 

message: I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: The cited source points to the Tamar Bridge Act, which says nothing about members being able to pose questions about the Duchy or not.  Because the cited source is quite partisan, I'd like to see a more objective source.  (I don't personally have any prejudice about it either way, I'm just interested in whether this is true.)  Ideally it would cite the actual injunction in hansard or an act.  Note that the same claim with the same citation is also made in eg Tintagel Castle -- Subsolar (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as a "parliamentary injunction".  MPs speaking in the House of Commons have greater protection of their free speech than almost anyone else.  Andrew George did speak in the Commons on 16 July 1997, but only to speak in a debate on rural policy.  I would remove the statement here, and everywhere else it appears, unless an adequate source can be found. — mholland (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  parliamentary injunction? 

message: We are stating that 
1877–1877: Alfred Henry Theisinger[43]
Shouldn't this be Alfred Henry Thesiger  --Intacart (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attorney-General 

message: This takes up about 90% of the text of the page, and is seriously WP:UNDUE weight given that it describes what is either obscure legal argument and/or a bizarre conspiracy theory. And although it has a couple of sources, it is basically original research in that much of it is written as a speculative essay, eg "It should be noted ..", "it can be argued .." etc. A decent page on this topic would have more of a proper, neutrally-written and chronological "History" section, and far less of this abstract theorising. I've added some templates/tags before actually doing anything substantive with it. N-HH talk/edits 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dispute" section 

message: Not sure how to change the article to reflect this but the reason why the duchy doesn't pay corporation tax has nothing to do with its status as a crown body but is soley to do with the fact its not a corporation. Just as I as an individual would not pay corporation tax on a house I let out, neither would the duchy. Prince Charles however is exempt from Income Tax, but pays voluntarily.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.202.211.195 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxes

message: The Duchy of Cornwall has been mentioned a lot recently in the houses of parliament. Tories, Labour (and possibly Lib-Dems?) were all referring to Cornwall(the place) as the Duchy rather than a landed estate. 
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=duchy+cornwall
Bodrugan (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Parliament 

message: It is claimed that  supports the statement that "the UK Treasury Solicitor uses the term "the duchy of Cornwall" to refer the territorial county of Cornwall for the purposes of Bona vacantia." This is problematic - it's original research, because the source does not say "the UK Treasury Solicitor uses the term "the duchy of Cornwall" to refer the territorial county of Cornwall for the purposes of Bona vacantia" - rather, the source supposedly uses the term to describe the county. Not only is this not an acceptable way of supporting the claim, it's also incorrect, because the source is concerned with the process of bona vacantia, and so is concerned primarily with the duchy, not the county. ninety:one   01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's possibly a wording too far, which I was probably a bit generous in leaving as it was when I edited the footnote the other day. However, while it may be drawing an explicit conclusion from the phrasing in the source, it doesn't seem to be, technically, an incorrect conclusion. The Directgov page clearly means the territorial area of Cornwall, ie the current county, when it talks about where the duchy has rights in bona vacantia (as the follow-on link to the Duchy of Cornwall site, which I added as a second source, makes clear). The point is of course that while Cornwall as a whole does not form part of the duchy's owned land or estate, the duchy does have certain rights across the county. I'll try and tweak it .. N-HH talk/edits 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: ps: also, technically, I suppose it is the Directgov site rather than the Treasury solicitor itself using the "duchy" terminology, which further undermines the original wording, given the sources currently cited. Although here is a proper TSol page using the same terminology. Anyway, I've had a go. N-HH talk/edits 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "duchy" to refer to the county 

message: The reference used is actually just a comment piece  on a prior article in the paper. The veto is not a feature of the duchy but a right that the Prince of Wales has to veto legislation that might affect his private interests. Therefore it is not relevent to this article but should go in Prince of Wales. Eckerslike (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is a comment piece, it is written by a specialist lawyer - which is therefore probably more credible than straight news reporting of this issue (even though a literal reading of WP rules might prefer us to rely on the latter). Also, the point is very specifically that this "veto" applies to legislation that might affect the duchy; and hence derives from his status as the Duke of Cornwall, rather than his status as Prince of Wales. I do think this issue needs to be covered on the page - but with due weight, and not as the straight cut & paste copyvio that was briefly here .. N-HH talk/edits 17:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, one simple reason is that you appear to find difficulty in citing references properly, so that other users know what you are talking about; you also appear to want to use primary sources, and add your own interpretation to them.  I've added the Gollancz commentary to the article, so that readers can see what he said.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @Salmon, as I have said here and elsewhere, I have no problem with adding properly sourced and properly weighted material about issues relating to the duchy and the odd constitutional quirks that surround it, as well as the controversies over its purported public/private status and the role of the duke etc. When I removed your additions initially, I pointed out that "verifiable and properly formatted" material would stay on the page. That means footnotes, urls to that material where available and no direct text cut & pastes or personal analysis subtly dumped on top etc. There is no cabal trying to suppress or censor, just a few people trying to make sure content here doesn't get even more scrappy, speculative, politically loaded or even outright untrue than it already is. N-HH talk/edits 14:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, the reworked section still has this explicit claim - "According to Treasury solicitors and the Land Registry, the Duchy of Cornwall is broadly the same extent as the modern county" - sourced to two guidance notes relating specifically to intestacy and company insolvency. As noted on the user's talk page, this seems to be one of those statements that is literally true - in that they do say this on one occasion in a specific context - but where too much weight is being placed on it, as if it were a fundamental and official declaration of principle by those bodies. I am not sure that it is. N-HH talk/edits 14:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right to veto legislation 

message: I think it's time for you two to stop arguing while you still can. Spshu - I also don't think this is an appropriate infobox, so consensus is further against you. You may not be aware that anything in an article about Cornwall that suggests that it may be a separate country is unlikely to remain unchallenged: such matters have been the topic of extensive discussion in the past, as a search in article talk space for "Cornwall country duchy England" will show. Consequently, I suggest that your preference for not proliferating infoboxes isn't appropriate in this instance. If an infobox is needed, why don't the three of you (Spshu, N-HH and Ghmyrtle) cooperate to craft one that would be appropriate for this and Duchy of Lancaster? A good sign of a willingness to compromise would be for you to remove the disputed infobox yourself, Spshu.  —SMALLJIM  23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for stepping in. I have to say though – as a simple statement of fact, not to be negative for its own sake – that I'm not particularly interested in helping to develop an infobox for the two royal duchies, not least because I don't think either page really needs one (and per the relevant section of the Manual of Style, they're not obligatory on pages). They've both survived happily enough for a long time without one at all, let alone an incorrect one. That said, if anyone else, Spshu included, wanted to develop a more focused infobox and use it here and at the Duchy of Lancaster, I wouldn't object. As I say, I'm kind of indifferent to the principle of having one – but if we do have one, it's got to an appropriate and relevant one, and it's up to them to sort that out if they want to put one in. N-HH talk/edits 10:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

text: ps: that's not to say that I would be unwilling to offer constructive advice on any proposed format and/or addition to this page, were it to be presented (as a proposal rather than a fait accompli, and assuming that the proposer would take any notice of what I suggest); just that I don't want to be particularly involved in the actual development of the thing itself. N-HH talk/edits 11:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cornish people granted minority status within UK: "The Cornish will gain the same status as other Celtic communities the Scots, Welsh and Irish."  Thus is a recognized country as are the Scotland, Wales and North Ireland (as a opposed to a unrecognized country), ie. a people, Cornish, attached to the land, Cornwall. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

text: O, and your little search that you recommend for me to look at, Smalljim, generally shows one editor just filibustering the discussion on a "because you don't understand" or "I don't care what the article's sources actually say I trump any logic" like N-HH tried. Totally wrong headed for WP. So either, Smalljim, you either lecture N-HH to follow the source as WP dictates (No original research) or turn in your administrator status. Spshu (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Recognition of Cornish people as a minority is not the same thing as recognition of Cornwall as a country; nor do any sources, including the BBC news report you linked to, say anything about the latter having occurred. Even if it had, the proper place to reflect that would be the page on Cornwall proper. Btw, rather than being "wrong headed", I am very much following what sources say about a) the distinction between the duchy and its estates and the county/region and b) whether Cornwall itself is a "country" – the problem is of course that you are not, and that your "logic", even if it were not as confused and harebrained as it happens to be, is what is called original research round here. As I said ages ago, if you don't understand the issues that you are talking about, it's best to stop banging on about them and criticising those who actually do. N-HH talk/edits 10:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the Cornish people are attached to the region called Cornwall like the Welsh to Wales. So, you don't know that Wales and Scotland are countries in the UK? Apparently, not since Cornwall is not a country and the article indicates they have the same status, so I guess that Wales and Scotland are not countries whether by recognized or by definition. that So, you claim that the Cornish don't live in Cornwall? Recognition of Cornwall by the government is not required for it to be a country. No, you follow the POV of the Royal Family. You have rejected every source in the Duchy of Cornwall article in that it supports my position. So, according to your logic, the whole article is original research. You have pushed that their is no distinction between the Duchy and the private estates now you claim there is a distinction?  So, that would prove that you are the one that doesn't know what he is talking about. Spshu (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Isle of Man  recognizes Cornwall as a nation/country: "This set of stamps celebrates the links between the Isle of Man and other Celtic nations: Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Ireland, Asturies and Galicia." Spshu (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the first half of that is just nonsensical non-sequiturs imputing to me things I have never said and would never argue, which in turn of course only flags up your own wider confusion about the issue itself and the discussions here in respect of it. As to the second point, I know Cornwall is considered one of the "Celtic nations" – a designation that has no "official" standing btw in terms of political administration or constitutional structure. The page on Cornwall itself already notes that. What exactly is the relevance of that here? As for this, I and no doubt others will revert any bid to add it to the page. Of the four people who have commented on this issue so far, you are alone in wanting an infobox on the page at all. Please reread previous posts and do some research as to why one with references to the duchy having a "government" etc is, beyond that, wholly inappropriate. I am not going to debate this any further as there is no point. N-HH talk/edits 08:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is a part of the government as it was started by what is considered an act of Parliament. And no the infobox is not just for "self-governing territorial entities" as they are used on Census-designated place that get its own article. The Duchy is not private property of the Duke as he must leave it for the next duke. The previous infobox was the country infobox, since you absolute did not want to help in any custom infobox or have the country box, I selected another. All you are current doing is being disruptive. Do not forget to just blank the whole page since you blankly don't the government implications of it. Spshu (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be obvious to you, Spshu, that you and N-HH are not going to agree about the addition of an existing infobox to this article. Either create a custom infobox that you can both agree to; or seek dispute resolution; or get a wider consensus of interested editors (try WT:UKGEO, for instance); or you could, I suppose, give it up... These are logical steps to take, but continuing back-and-forth discussion here or re-adding an infobox without consensus aren't.  —SMALLJIM  10:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for compromise

message: Before this interesting article proceeds may I make a suggestion
I have just been reading the Wiki article on the Duchy of Lancaster.Now the reason why British history is so fascinating is that it is well documented and goes back a long way and where the Monarchy is concerned it becomes fascinating //particularly for Americans to read about the extraordinary rights some of the Royals have
What is missing in these articles however is a clear simple direct introduction saying clearly exactly how much money after tax,charity giving and expenses actually goes into the pockets of the Royals involved and what effective control does the government have over these properties.
It is clear that these properties cannot be sold for profit and that a government minister is effectively responsible for the Duchy of Lancaster.. I have worked out that Prince Charles actually receives about four million a year in his pocket and the Queen about probably six million . Bearing in mind that these were their ancestors lands that is not very much
I hope someone with more knowledge of these facts can provide an even clearer view. Otherwise we are in that strange obscurantist world of "the Queen is the richest woman in the world "nonsense.: Thank you  tildes dont work!  
--80.98.113.60 (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Duchy 

message: In the proper armorial bearings of the Duchy of Cornwall, the shield is ensigned with the Heir Apparent's coronet. This is supported by such authorities as Boutell's Heraldry at p. 219, a snippet of which can be seen here. The shield ensigned with the coronet is the symbol that is used on the official website of the Duchy of Cornwall here. This symbol is also shown on the official Financial Statements, which can be seen here. I therefore propose that the very nice image showing the shield ensigned with the coronet (File:Arms of the Duchy of Cornwall.svg) be restored to its rightful position at the top right corner of the article's page, in place of the plain shield. If you have any objections, please post on my talk page. -- Blairall (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armorial bearings of the Duchy of Cornwall 

message: Roughly half of all Duchy properties are located in Devon. Could/should this fact be written about more in the article? Understandably its position in Cornwall is elaborated on more, but as the Duchy definitely had an impact on my life growing up on Dartmoor I would be interested in hearing more about the Devon side of things as well - which is only briefly mentioned in the article. --Julius R.S (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devon. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Duchy of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720134524/http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/abouttheduchy_history.htm to http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/abouttheduchy_history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Duchy of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205194139/http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/abouttheduchy_history_acquisition.htm to http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/abouttheduchy_history_acquisition.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604194145/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duchy of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328092127/http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk:80/PLR/vol3/Kirkhope.pdf to http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/PLR/vol3/Kirkhope.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928075257/http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/managementandfinances_bonavacantia.htm to http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/managementandfinances_bonavacantia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Duchy of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814095623/http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/EXCLUSIVE-Prince-William-groomed-Duchy-role/story-26890650-detail/story.html to http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/EXCLUSIVE-Prince-William-groomed-Duchy-role/story-26890650-detail/story.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/PLR/vol3/Kirkhope.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the word 'duchy' (as in 'the duchy', when standing alone) have a capital letter? The article uses both upper and lower case (as do contributors to this talk page). The two official websites both use the upper case, as in 'the Duchy', and I think we probably ought to use this too. But above all, the article needs to be consistent. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital for 'duchy'?

message: The post-interregnum section of the article's history only starts in 1975. I was hoping to find out when the original broader feudal rights mentioned at the duchy's founding (like appointing the sheriff) were lost.  Vultur~enwiki (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: what happened between 1660 and 1975? 

message: Is the property section supposed to be exhaustive? Perhaps we need to mention, "this is not an exhaustive list".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHaeusler (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Highgrove House listed under Property?