Kernewek not English

John Trethowan   Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:06 pm GMT
Cornish respected as a nation, not a region!!!

1. Cornwall is legally an extra territorial land from England and not an administrative county which it has illegally been for nearly 400 years .

2. Although our own Parliament was suspended in the 18th Century, we still have Independent Sovereign Rights that are fixed in law.

3. Henry VIII listed England and Cornwall separately, in the list of his realms given in his Coronation address.

4. Cornwall's right to its own sovereign Parliament, and the powers it pocesses under the Charter of Pardon were confirmed as valid in British law by the Lord Chancellor in 1977.

5. No record exists of any formal annexation of Cornwall to England.

6. Cornwall is a member of the Federal Union of Eurupean Nationalities which has special participatory status at the council of Europe in Strasburg and consultative status to the United Nations.

7. There is no mention in the " Anglo-Saxon Chronicles " that Cornwall was ever conquered by the English .

8. The Cornish language gained official UK Government recognition in 2002 and funding in 2005.

9. Cornwall, like Wales, was not party to the Act of Union in 1707.

10. Before the 1960's, there was little difference between Cornwall and Wales in constitutional terms.

11. Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between England and Cornubia ( Cornwall ) .


12. The 1969-71 Killbrandon Report into the British constitution states that, " when referring to Cornwall, official sources should cite the Duchy". This was in recognition of it's constitutional position.

13. You now have the right on some official forms to be able to record your Nationality as Cornish. Eg :NHS Registration Forms; if the Police ask you your Nationality, it is acceptable to them to record it as Cornish.


14. Maps of the British Isles produced up until the 18th century showed Cornwall as a distinct entity and on a par with Wales.


15. Cornwall is an older nation than England and one of the oldest Duchies in Europe.

16. 90% of Cornish place names are of celtic origin and derived from the Cornish language.

17. The Duchy includes the entire territory known as Cornwall, including the bed and waters of the River Tamar.

18. The Cornish are a Celtic people who once inhabited the entire region covered by present-day Cornwall, Devon and West-Somerset.

19. The Duke of Cornwall is our head of state ; Not the UK monarch.

20. The Duke's powers are further confirmed in the Tamar Bridge Act as recently as 1998.
Guest   Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:16 pm GMT
What is the point of stating all that? By reading your post, it sounds as if you already have a lot independence without shedding a drop of blood. By the way beware "The Adam".
guest   Thu May 11, 2006 9:46 pm GMT
Yes, the Kernewek (Cornish) do still exist according to this !

2001 census

01 British
02 Irish
03 English
04 Scottish
05 Welsh
06 Cornish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_2001_Ethnic_Codes

who's Adam ?
Jim C, York   Thu May 11, 2006 11:45 pm GMT
As Cornwall is part of England (officialy or unofficialy, how ever you see it) How do you feel about the other regions of England? After all, England is as "made up" (for lack of a better word) as the Union is. Have in your mind the Cornish been "oppressed"? I'm never sure what to make of Cornwall's national identity, and "celticness". This "Us and them" attitude is starting to grate on me a little (its starting to seem slightly more than the usual banter, which I enjoy).

Should we just pack in the Union, should we pack in England??? I'm getting alot of mixed signals!
Damian in Edinburgh   Fri May 12, 2006 7:42 am GMT
Chill out Jim! I never thought I would ever say this but I do see things a wee bit differently now. Just look at the history of your country...England. By that I mean the way it developed geographically and not it's political history.

At one time England did not exist as one single entity......it was made up of separate kingdoms, all independent of each other......Mercia, Wessex, Anglia, Northumbria, Lancastria etc etc. all ruled over by separate monarchs.

Eventually all these areas, away from the Celtic fringe, merged over time and the England you have today was formed. Cornwall, down there in the extreme south west, became subsumed into the single England, even though it was essentially part of the Celtic fringe. The other parts of this fringe - Scotland and Wales - remained as separate nations.

Regional differences and characteristics remained and that's a good thing, don't you agree? Look at the differences between the North and the South of England - accents especially - as well as culturally. Rivalries are bound to occur because of these regional differences, but they are all friendly and the North will always take the piss out of the South and vice versa, and overall this banter is very much a British characteristic in itself. I'm leaving out the Scottish/English and Welsh/English situation here because you seem to be concerned with England here.

One thing I noticed when I went to uni in Leeds was how proud of their county Yorkshire people were....almost nationalistic. Why shouldn't they be? Yorkshire is a great county, full of variety and differences within its own extensive borders. Look how different the North York Moors are from Holderness, and Scarborough is from Bradford. Should Yorkshire be packed in then because of that?

The people of the North East Region of England (Geordieland) voted overwhelmingly against a separate Assembly (or whatever you call it) for their Region.....9 to 1 against. Hardly a signal for England to pack it all in. Look how vastly different the regions of other countries are from each other...France, Germany, the USA....even more pronounced than they are in England. They probably all take the piss out of each other as well.

I went down to Cornwall for the first time last year and I noticed how different it was from the rest of England in so many ways....the Celtic "feel" was palpable. Yet I never heard any Cornish spoken apart from a few words which is all the people I met knew.h There will always be small groups of people who are fanatical about their causes, such as Cornish political separation from the rest of England, , but they are just tiny minorities. Such groups always make loud noises, and give the impression that they are more poweful and they really are.

In spite of our anti English banter here in Scotland a lot of the time, and which will always go on, there is absolutely no chance of a majority desire for a breakaway from the British Union. The SNP come way down the voting intentions of the Scottish electorate, even though a separate Parliament at Holyrood is a good thing when it comes to matters affecting only Scotland. The same goes for Wales. We love our separate identity, a country in our own right, but the idea of total separation from the UK...even England itself......is....well, a load of bollocks. It'll never happen.

The same goes for all your different regions down there in England. Just value your differences and take the piss out of each other for evermore. One of the pleasures of this country are the differences in accents from one area to the next in just a few miles, literally.
logical   Fri May 12, 2006 3:52 pm GMT
There is strength in unity whether it be economic or military strength. Therefore if the people in these places are not oppressed and their culture is respected then there is little reason to split. Make the best of what you have.
Jim C, Jorvikskyr   Fri May 12, 2006 5:55 pm GMT
Ooops, I didn't actualy mean for that post to apear like a rant...imagine me saying it in typical northern dower style. It was mainly a load of questions grouped badly. (the booze does this to me, and I get into trouble) Iwas trying to but a few questions out there about regional identity, given that England is actualy shown as a group of regions on some European map (Which I quite like, as Yorkshrie looks massive! ;)

What I was asking, in my none so elliquent stlye was..

What does this proud ethnic identity of the Cornish mean for other regions of the UK which all have varying different amounts of the English component parts.

The question about the Cornish being oppressed may have come out wrong. Being one of the poorest regions in Europe, let alone the UK, has past events influenced this, or was it just the way the cookie crumbled? How much was the Anglocisation (is that a word??) of the Cornish and internal matter, or something that was forced upon them?


The "Us and them" comment, was me being a bit melodramatic I admit. But there are a few people like that, My mate read me a Danish National Geographic article on "The Celts", some of the people they interviewed were a bit scaithing of the "English"/"Authorities", especialy some Welsh fella taking down sings or summin, waving his fist in the air shouting Welsh obsenities.Normaly Ide Laugh, but it seems sometimes to be a bit more than the usual banter, like I said.

Dont worry Damian, I'm almost always chilled, its hard to convey properly over text...
Guest   Fri May 12, 2006 7:26 pm GMT
I think the Cornish people have a point. They are recognised as a Celtic nation by many, had their own ethnic code 06 at the last 2001 UK census,
along with the English, Scots, Irish and Welsh and have their own language (although only about 3,000 people currently speak it). This is what makes it different from other English "counties".

Irrespective of what many English folk tend to think, it's a fact that many Cornish folk 'feel' different to their English neighbours and indeed act different in many respects both culturally and politically. This much is a well documented fact.

However, one of the reasons that the nationalist party, Mebyon Kernow, has not been so popular in Cornwall to date in terms of votes at national elections, is that the national parties, particularly the Lib-Dems (all 5 MPs), have been very effective at playing the 'Cornish Card' and fielding strong Cornish candidates.

Hence, a Cornish candidate attached to a national party also offers a nice compromise for the large English immigrant population in Cornwall (around 50%?), many of whom support Cornish causes but feel voting for a Cornish nationalist party would be betraying their English roots. Although I appreciate that this is not always the case as Du Maurier proved (although one suspects she might have joined MK for somewhat romantic reasons rather than politcal ones!)

Irrespective of their election success, MK have provided an excellent sounding board for Cornish issues since the 1950's and opposed the 'South Westernisation' of Cornwall and pronounced it's "difference" to England at every opportunity.

A strong Cornwall is of benefit to everyone, the inhabitants of Cornwall no doubt, but also the English through greater economic development and trade. Giving Cornwall a greater say in determining its future, I believe, would help release that inherent strength within Cornwall that fired the industrial revolution way before it had taken hold in England, and hopefully go some way to also release it from the dependancy on tourism which leaves many of its inhabitants impoverished from the type of low skilled seasonal work the industry supplies.

There is no problem with English nationalism or the English nation, it's just that the majority of English nationalists are rightwing thugs or at best europhobic UKIP exiles who are more interested in europhobia or xenophobia than the English nation and culture. They claim Cornish devolution or English regional assemblies are just part of an EU scam to break up England, but as Damian says we're all proud of our separate identities but the break-up of the UK will never happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A10686710

http://www.manxman.co.im/cleague/

http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/maps-states2.asp?id_pays=45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Alliance_of_America
Jim C, York   Fri May 12, 2006 7:46 pm GMT
Ive said before that im pro-european, and very much for a Yorkshire regional assembly (but only if it has propper autonimous powers, including more powers for Wales). But I have become wairy (I cant bleeding spell) of this idea on a national scale. Mainly because the Cornish would be governed from Bristol, (or was it Bath?) as part of a south west assembly, even I as a citizen of "Pow Sows" can see the injustice in that.

To me there isn't only two choices to solve the West Lothian question. We could, for example, have regional assemblys with decent powers (a re-think on the borders of these may be needed) and then a national council of England inorder for all these regions to have a strong united voice within the UK, rather than induvidualy being over shadowed by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We do need to think what Westminster's role would be in this new shape UK, but at the moment it seems they are holding onto powers at the expense of English democracy. I would aslo say that the main partys should be putting a realistic agenda forward, rather than leaving it to crack pots to have the voice on this matter.

As for some European "plan" to controll England by the back door, complete bollocks. Though I will admit that England does not technically exist to the EU (on the face of it) , but in the end who's fault is that?
Guest   Fri May 12, 2006 9:52 pm GMT
Jim, I know you can't bloody spell. Why don't you write your post in Microsoftword and run a spell check. Your spelling is a bad model for young learners to follow. Do something about it. It'll just waste one extra minute of yours if you follow my above suggestion.

What kind of spelling is this "induvidualy"?
Jim C, York   Fri May 12, 2006 10:14 pm GMT
I would just like to say, I am sorry for my poor spelling. It has never been my strong suit, and I urge others not to follow my example, and try their hardest to treat every piece of text they write with the utmost respect, rather than rushing through responses, as I do. Again I apologise profusely.
Kirk   Fri May 12, 2006 10:43 pm GMT
<<I would just like to say, I am sorry for my poor spelling. It has never been my strong suit, and I urge others not to follow my example, and try their hardest to treat every piece of text they write with the utmost respect, rather than rushing through responses, as I do. Again I apologise profusely.>>

You don't have to apologize--I think "Guest" should speak for himself/herself as he/she apparently doesn't find it worth it to "waste the one extra minute" to write in a name on posts yet finds no problem criticizing typos and spelling mistakes others make.

One general hint of forum etiquette--if you feel so brazen as to criticize the content of another's post you could at least provide a pseudonym to let us know who you are when you post.
Jim C, York   Fri May 12, 2006 11:40 pm GMT
Thanks Kirk, I don't know why that got at me.
Demi Moore   Sat May 13, 2006 12:04 am GMT
To Dr. Prof. Kirk: ( Double MA and PHD in linguistics). On top of that, he also has an autograph of Arnold S. the Governor of California and a famous actor on all of his degrees. After such a profile, I think we should take his words for granted just like graved on stones. I can't argue with such a person.. I'm already wetting my pants.

All I can say is that the world has gone down the toilet when it comes to listening and hearing the right advice. I gave a good piece of advice to Jim to follow -- it is upto him to follow it in total and complete.

Prof Kirk: Does it really matter what name or identity I have when there is no registeration system. Ok. For the sake of truth, I'm gonna have my original identity on such a forum.

Demi Moore
The most beautiful Actress and Lady!
CAA   Sun May 14, 2006 10:01 pm GMT
<<Irrespective of what many English folk tend to think, it's a fact that many Cornish folk 'feel' different to their English neighbours and indeed act different in many respects both culturally and politically. This much is a well documented fact.>>

http://www.celticleague.org/main.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Alliance_of_America