´óÏó´«Ã½

So whilst the Celtic League mount a protest outside the very station you are in highlighting the fact that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is anti-Cornish you post this, are you just trying to prove their point?

And HRH The Duke Of Cornwall is Duke of The ????? Of ???????? ?

Please provide the missing words, Mr Smith.

Put your hand in the Cornish hat, pull out one of the many Nationalist claims, down-size it a tad on your blog..

While a Cornish Nationalist rips up your future wage slip outside in the rain.

Crap effort - bad timing.

You seemed quite keen on FOI requests last month, Mr Smith.

Does your enthusiasm extend to making FOI requests to the Duke of The Duchy Of Cornwall for a tally of the individual and accumulated value of all intestate (bona vacantia) estates assumed for ownership and disposal by the Dukes of The Duchy Of Cornwall in all of the last seven centuries and asking from which territorial location they originated and to which purposes those bona vacantia acquired assets were put?

You might like to let your readers know the results of your enquiries.

As for the topic..

"As I have blogged before, Kilbrandon was careful to use the word "appropriate" - there is not even a hint of "should" or "ought" or "must" call Cornwall a Duchy."

When dealing with matters of constitutional proportion you do not instruct others to how they 'must' and 'should' behave - you advise them of the "appropriate" use of official terminology based on solid facts and historical truths.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should embrace the 'appropriate terminology' advise themselves when referring to Cornwall in a territorial or geographical context.

It is beyond belief - or worse, total incompetence - that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in Cornwall does not yet know the true constitutional status of Cornwall and its unique relationship with the Duke of Cornwall and the Crown of England, considering the amount of media coverage it has received in recent years including its own Radio Cornwall debates on nationalism.

The word is out Graham..
Has been for a while.

Very clever Mr Smith. Why not report what's happening outside the door, rather than cheap, tedious and smug shots like this?

Although at least one of the staff at Radio (not)Cornwall has had the inclination to find out what the Royal Commission on the Constitution actually is, albeit to (blindly) justify their existence.

If ever there was a reason for the protest happening right now outside the studio, your crass blog is it!

As for your journalistic skills... a quick lesson in grammar might help. Abberant apostrophes anyone?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

You appear a little dogmatic there for one so poorly informed, Mr Smith.
And somewhat naively gullible and passively accepting of certain sources of information for an 'investigative' 'journalist'.

Here's some help towards developing your understanding:

Your self-enforced ignorance and blinkered refusal to accept the facts is really quite astonishing, Mr Smith.

Please complete this sentence:

HRH Duke of Cornwall is The Duke Of C......., the territory lying immediately westwards of the territorial entity known as 'England'.

Some more assistance to help you complete this simple exercise:

Looks like the moderators are struggling....

...with the constitutional and territorial truths concerning The Duchy Of Cornwall revealed at:

Graham, the whole point of the constitutional debate is that the Duchy is not what it says it is. In comment number 8 you are just regurgitating the official line. If you look at the laws of the Duchy you will find that it refers to the whole of Cornwall. You don't even have to go very far back, look up the Cornish Foreshore Case of 1858, when the Duchy successfully argued that it owns the foreshore in Cornwall, not the Crown.

"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."

Perhaps you would like to apply your investigative skills there too? Best wishes

I was only replying to your comment!

But isn't description of the area in the media an "appropriate occasion"?

Ye Gods and little fishes ! The Uk as a whole is in a mess and as such Cornwall is suffering to I can not see the handfull of self rule fanatics being able to improve the lot of the county , No doubt someone will come along and explain to me just how the county would survive standing alone with out handouts .

Whats next if you are not Cornish you cant have a job here or buy a house It's all very well waving the flag but you need to back up your plan with cold hard facts .

You could allways have a non Cornish tax i.e If you cant prove 5 generations of a cornish bloodline non of which ever left the county then you pay for those that can !!

Well done Graham as you know the fringe of extremists lead by Marhak are stalking your every comment, my media seems to be swamped with this internet based plague now Tony Leamon is taking over @ thisiscornwall because the Celtic league threatened legal action. Give them an island and pack the moaners off

Dear ´óÏó´«Ã½ Moderators,

Any chance we will be allowed to read any time soon the comment posted above by Angarracks-Angels at 07:45am on 22 Aug 2010 ?

"No doubt someone will come along and explain to me just how the county would survive standing alone with out handouts ."

Actually the Cornish pay their taxes and are entitled to the same support as anywhere else in Britain...and don't get it:

"Out of a tiny gross domestic product of £3.6 billion, the Government takes over £1.95 billion in taxes, and puts back into the county less than £1.65 billion, a gap of over £300 million."


@Graham - if Cornwall is so provably a county why doesn't the government and/or Her Majesty the Queen state it, prove it, and let the argument rest? Do they have the proof?

Graham, basically, what you are saying above is that Cornwall, according to Kilbrandon, should be called a Duchy when appropriate.
Which is all that those nationalists are doing, they are calling for Cornwall to be called a Duchy when appropriate.
So far, there is agreement.

All we need do now, is to agree on what is deemed "appropriate".
The Nationalists would argue that it is "appropriate" on all occasions when referring to Cornwall, whereas, it would appear that you would argue that it was never "appropriate" to do so.

Clearly, Kilbrandon thought that there would, at least, be the odd occasion when calling Cornwall a Duchy would be appropriate, or he would not have bothered mentioning it in his report. Do you have any clue as to when these occasions would be?

Dear ´óÏó´«Ã½ Moderators,

Any chance we will be allowed to read any time soon the comment posted above by Angarracks-Angels at 07:45am on 22 Aug 2010 ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

To be fair Graham the way ´óÏó´«Ã½ Cornwall seem to refer to Cornwall is always as county, never as Duchy or Kernow and seldom as just Cornwall. So ipso facto you yourself and your radio station have deemed it inappropriate to call Cornwall a Duchy are there any grounds for this? You only seem to think its appropriate to call Cornwall a Duchy when you attmept to debunk this title, is that really what Kilbrandon had in mind?

So, Mr Smith, what kind of 'private estate':

1.Is automatically entitled to the possessions and assets of anyone dying intestate within its titular territory?
2.Is deemed owner of all minerals under the foreshore and wrecks upon the foreshore of its titular territory?
3.Is above and beyond the reach of planning and development rules and requirements as applied to all other planning applicants within its titular territory?
4.Enjoys exemption, where applicable, from Acts Of Parliament on a par with the Crown?
5.Is exempt from capital gains tax?
6.Has a principal who has a right to interfere with and disrupt proceedings in a court of law?
7.Has a principal who pays voluntary rates and amounts of income tax?

Simplified summary available here:


Lastly, Mr Smith, what kind of 'investigative' 'journalist' pontificates prematurely on a complex subject about which he clearly knows so little?

Duchy Of Cornwall Management Act 1863:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'But your original question was about the Freedom of Information Act.'
Forsooth, methinks thou quibbleth, Mr Thmith.
You inadequately and unduly smugly described what is a constitutional and territorial entity as a 'privately-owned family business' and erroneously cited that as a reason why 'it is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act'. The more likely reason 'it is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act' is that what we have here is a rather putrid, potentially constitutionally destabilising, embarrassingly self-enriching can of fetid rotting ancient worms.

Are you sure you're actually seeking clarity, Mr Smith, and not actually seeking to generate yet more fog, fuzzy thinking and truth avoiding obfuscation? :

/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/08/anoraks_corner.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/08/duchy_says_cornwall_is_a_count.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/08/bona_vacantia.html
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/08/should_it_be_the_duchy_of_devo.html

Your predetermined agenda appears clear from the thrust of your post titles - your aim appears to be to maintain and seek to propagate an apologia for Duchy Of Cornwall (corp div) misleading propaganda rather than address, investigate and reveal the truths and facts about The Duchy Of Cornwall (territorial entity).