h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

“However seeing as you and most of your friends don't live in Devonshire or come from the county your comments are a bit rich.”

Fulup,

You obviously know something that we don’t. Which of the participants in the Devon Flag design activity don’t come from Devon?

“Yes but the following Cornish sites did not get a huge publicity boost for their products from the BBC did they? Products for an identity that until it was invented and promoted by the BBC did not exist.”

Fulup,

I think you will find that it was the flag that was invented, not the Devonian identity. The identity precedes the flag by many, many centuries. Devon’s historical boundaries are close to those of the ancient Celtic kingdom of Dumnonia as can be clearly seen in any history book which deals with the period and the area.

Devon has been part of England for over 1,000 years and its Celtic language is now part of ancient history, but to deny Devon has a Celtic element to its history and culture is to disregard the truth. Devon’s identity is neither wholly Celtic nor entirely English, which is what makes it Devon, not Hampshire or Cornwall.

The creation of the flag tied in with this strong sense of regional identity and its popularity shows it was something that people in Devon wanted. It was not foisted upon us by some bizarre Whitehall conspiracy acting through the local news desk of the BBC.

So what if some people are making money out of it? If people didn’t want it then they wouldn’t be buying it. I think you will find the main economic beneficiary of the Devon flag is a certain Mr Flag company, who also make Cornish flags, English flags, in fact any flag you can think of. I see no evidence of any ‘scam’ in operation.

Finally, I see you always using ‘Devonshire’ instead of ‘Devon’. I know by using it you are trying to make a point about Devon’s Englishness. But both terms have always been used, and today the term ‘Devonshire’ has largely fallen out of common use. The preferred term among Devon people being, of course, Devon. You will find in Welsh the term is Dyfnaint, which is close to the original Celtic root of the name. Adding ‘shire’ on does not somehow negate that fact.

Fulup,

You talk of a "scam behind the scenes".

What do you refer to?

If by this you refer to BBC Devon hosting the discussion about the Devon Flag, and somehow infer that this is improper, then (again) I suggest you look closer to home.

The BBC Cornwall site uses the Cornish Flag on all of its pages. Is this "improper"?.

The BBC Cornwall site includes a section on the Cornish language - "Blas Kernewek" - refer to the link below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cornwall/connected/stories/new_cornwall_language1.shtml

Further - on that page they have a link to the Warlinenn website - one of the sites I pointed out earlier that sell a range of commercial material.

Now - I don't have any objection to that. However, I think your perspective is hypocritical.

As EVB has pointed out, no-one on this site has "invented" Devon's celtic identity.

Devon's very name is of Celtic derivation, and as EVB points out this correlates with the Celtic nation of Dumnonia. (And by the way no-one here is promoting a "Devonwall" agenda.)

The links to Celtic saints is clear evidence of this - St Nectan, St Budoc, St Urith, and St Brannock are examples of this within Devon, as are others who cross over Devon/Cornwall boundaries such as St Petrock.

The suggestion that St Petrock should be Devon's patron saint dates back at least as far as the Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould [of Lewtrenchard] (who famously collected the "songs of the west" in the late nineteenth century - evidencing local folk songs and culture).

Back in Victorin era Professor Thomas Huxley also made the statement that "not only Cornish men but Devonshire men are as little Anglo-Saxon as Northumbrians are Welsh".

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/PMG/HonPolEthn.html

I doubt any of the contributors on this site can claim to date from this era.

Also - Cornwall makes much of its "unique" Cornish Stannary Parliament - and yet Devon had a similar (although separate) body (in fact legally it still has, as its existence has never been revoked).

As the Devon Stannary Parliament goes back to (at least) the 13th Century I doubt that even you can claim that we "invented" it.

I must agree with EVBs comments.

What we have been discussing is Devon's culture and history. All societies in western Europe have a flippin great black hole in their history just over 1000 years ago. We are discussing the possible explanations for our county for that period.

Yes, several of us now live outside Devon. But I was raised in the county, and am of Devonian descent, wherever I live Devon will always be Home to me. This probably goes for every else who live away from Devon. Why did we move? As you put - Money. Devon is, ALONGSIDE CORNWALL, a relativly poor expensive place to live. The joke growing up was always "southern prices, northern wages". There are not the jobs to persue a career for a lot of Devonians. And Cornish too. The economy is heavily reliant on seasonal work with all that entails, with a large element of retirees and second home makers pushing house prices beyond the reach of Cornwall.

As EVB points out Devonshire is an archaic term. The use of -shire as a suffix in an English county name means NOTHING as to it's being Celtic/Anglos-Saxon/Viking or Martian in origin. All shire states is the county is named after its principal seat. However under the Local Government (England) Act 1974 as amended both Devon and Cornwall are shire counties to differentiate these type of counties from the metropolitan counties introduced under the same legislation. And after all, the Welsh for county is "sir" pronounced "shire".

Further to the flag, the Devon flag was NOT my choice, but it is the flag of Devon and I fly it with pride. Every flag in the world has a political element to it. A large number of Canadians did not want their flag changed from the British Red Ensign. The introduction of the current flag of Canada was a political move. But does that make it any less Canadian? Can you think of a better flag to represent Canada? I can't.

If I remember rightly the Devon flag was born before the discussions on Celtic Devon. Also a large number of other counties are balloting on a possible flag, the BBC sites simply a messaging board. Why? As EVB says, strong regional and local identity in a changing world.

I for one am not in the pay of Whitehall or anyone else to "promote the Celtic Devon cause to the detriment of Cornwall." Damaging Cornwall and the Cornish identity is the last thing I want. I want to encourage Devon's. Cornwall and the Cornish should have no fear in that or try to slate us for doing so. A) what damage can as you put on the Cornwall24 pages "a half dozen do? and B) speaking personally would someone who wants to damage Cornwall on behalf of the London establishment be planning to use one of my votes in May for the Nationalists? I think not.

In fact there is more that joins us in Devon and Cornwall then some people allow. Is it not more "playing into the hands of Whitehall" to shout "Devonwall" and try to divide the counties? Divide and conquer it is called. Cornwall is unique, so is Devon. Much of out culture is identical to the extent of the accent being almost identical. But there is a a lot that differentiates us. We should fight for our corners, but not slag off the other side of the Tamar. The infighting is what "Whitehall" means. Any unified front between Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset would cost them money, something both New Labour and the Tories are loath to give us.

"The BBC Cornwall site uses the Cornish Flag on all of its pages. Is this "improper"?"

Seeing with what joyful glee the BBC jumped on the whole Devonshire celtic thing and flag as compared to the years and years of campaigning by Cornish "nationalist", the very same nationalists you now spend your time attacking, yes!

Indeed a recognised Cornish celtic nation and constitutional duchy could only strenghten the overall celtic cause including that of Devonshire don't you think? So why have you spent so much time in researching your duchy denial arguments which could, could! just blow up in your faces with the impending court case.

Any old who TGG as usual has addressed many of your points on the website under the page title Devon and Wessex: http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/

"The BBC Cornwall site uses the Cornish Flag on all of its pages. Is this "improper"?"

Seeing with what joyful glee the BBC jumped on the whole Devonshire celtic thing and flag as compared to the years and years of campaigning by Cornish "nationalist", the very same nationalists you now spend your time attacking, yes!

Indeed a recognised Cornish celtic nation and constitutional duchy could only strenghten the overall celtic cause including that of Devonshire don't you think? So why have you spent so much time in researching your duchy denial arguments which could, could! just blow up in your faces with the impending court case.

Any old who TGG as usual has addressed many of your points on the website under the page title Devon and Wessex: http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/

Fulup,

TGG may have addressed our points, but has definitely not answered them. In actual fact, in his over-hasty attempt to dismiss what we have stated, he actually contradicts himself. Firstly he asks:-

“One is left wondering, therefore, as to why this ‘Celtic’ spark has only just, relatively speaking, been ignited in Devonshire?”

This is clearly not the case. Throughout history there has been an awareness of a Celtic dimension in Devon. Chroniclers such as Risdon wrote of Cornish language being spoken in South Devon as late as the 14th century, and others have stated that it persisted even later than this close to the Tamar. Later writers and historians, such as Baring-Gould and Hoskins, have stressed the continuance of Celtic culture into the modern era. In the book “British Social History” (published in the 1960s), the author James Mainwaring, M.A., D.Litt., F.R.Hist.S. wrote that “Devon and Cornwall were integral parts of the Celtic fringe.” This is clearly not a spark, which has just been ignited in Devon. Perhaps the Cornish Nationalists have been too busy contemplating their own navels to notice it before, although I don’t see why, as I communicated with the (then) chairman of MK about it in the late 1960s.

Secondly, TGG mentions what Borlase wrote in 1769:-

“that long after the events of AD 936 that Totnes was still considered to be the eastern boundary of Cornwall – as late as the time of Henry III.”

Borlase later amends this (quoting Sheringham) by stating that the River Exe was the eastern boundary of the Cornish Britons at the time of Edward I.

So the evidence that TGG gives here is in direct contradiction to what he and others (such as Conan Jenkin) had always maintained, i.e. that the eastern boundary of Cornwall had been set in 936 AD, and that the Celtic language in Devon was extinct before the Norman Conquest. In one sense, his original statement was correct, in that Devon had never been a geographical part of Cornwall. There is ample evidence for this in legal documents predating the reign of Edward I. Both Devon and Cornwall had been geographical parts of the kingdom of Dumnonia (together with West Somerset). What Borlase almost certainly meant was that the Cornish language persisted west of the Exe until this time. This is precisely what others have been saying for centuries, and for which there is documentary evidence in the “Crown Pleas of the Devon Eyre (1238)”. Therefore, by quoting from Borlase, TGG has not only provided corroborating evidence for the writings of Risdon and others, but he has contradicted his own statement that the ‘Celtic Devon’ realization is a new phenomenon. Even during the Victorian period of the ‘Teutonic supremacy’ myth, writers such as Thomas Huxley maintained that Devon was a Celtic land.

We have no interest in denying Cornwall’s Celtic credentials, where these can be validated, but we will continue to resist the blatant misrepresentation of Devon’s history by the Cornish Nationalists, whether it be Dark Age history, Stannary history, Devon’s part in Duchy history, the Prayerbook Rebellion, etc. For instance the “Cornish National Minority Report” still attempts to perpetuate the myth that all Britons (Celts) were driven out of Devon by Athelstan. Even Borlase intimated that this could not have been the case, and modern genetics has proved that it is a myth (Sykes, Oppenheimer, etc.).

Incidentally, I am still waiting for you to tell us who (among the Devon Flag instigators) was not from Devon. Also, you have still not explained who the “indigenous Celts” were.

'The Devon flag was hoisted outside County Hall in Exeter for the first time ever (on 18th October) to mark Local Democracy Week.Council leader Brian Greenslade and deputy leader David Smith raised the flag after a lunch of local produce attended by councillors and guests.

It will now be flown from the flagpole at the Topsham Road entrance to County Hall, in defiance of a suggestion made by planning minister Yvette Cooper earlier this year that all flags except national emblems need planning permission.

Councillors are ignoring this, taking their lead from Cornwall County Council, which has flown the county's St Piran flag outside County Hall in Truro for years without bureaucratic interference.

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=141529&command=displayContent&sourceNode=141513&contentPK=15712850&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

No reflection on Nest, but I think it is a pity that they didn't ask Kevin Pyne to go along, as he wrote the inaugral Flag poem.

Ozzie Exile,

It was good to see the flag flying, I hope there is no more bureaucratic interference, I remember saying a year ago to EVB that it was time to see the flag flying outside County Hall, Topsham Road.

I agree that Kevin Pyne should have got a chance to read his poem, perhaps the people that matter might let him on June 4th on St Petrock's day, a bit belated I know.

I have just received an email from Kevin, telling me that he has been invited to the next open session that will be held.

I hope that he gets a chance to read his poem.

I don't know if others from this forum (or other members of the DFG) are invited or able to attend. I will ask Kevin for time and date.

Bob,

Here is a longer and more comprehensive response for you.

This may be considered as a composite response to your posts from as far back as message 193. I do not restate any quotes or replies, in order to make this response as brief as it can possibly be. It has also been done knowing that you can offer nothing to the debate other than to perpetuate an agenda of confusion to susceptible minds.

The territorial overlap between Dumnonia, West Wales and Cornwall indicates that this is a confused historical period with the only written source referring to the eviction of the Britons from Exeter. Exeter was a shared city and considered the Cornish capital and, it also seems to be, the period when the use of Devonshire comes into play. The idea of a Cornish border with Wessex, although not specified, prior to Athelstan, seems entirely probable from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for AD 823 which states, “This year a battle was fought between the Welsh in Cornwall and the people of Devonshire, at Camelford”.

The absence of any written record is no proof that something did not happen, but any written record, whether fact or fiction, provides either a marker of knowledge, or a perceived understanding of events. Egbert’s success over the Cornish & Danes in AD 838 does not signify subjugation, as some would have us believe, but would only have meant, perhaps, some measure of containment, whilst also affording an opportunity of further westward encroachment of the unspecified boundary of Wessex.

There is an entry for AD 878, which includes the statement, “And in the winter of this same year the brother of Ingwar and Healfden landed in Wessex, in Devonshire”. Such entries either reflect knowledge at that time, or a perception carried through to the point when the entries were made, which may itself have been copied from an earlier text. Could the very vague ASC ever be wrong?

This containment became subjugation, presumably, if we are to believe the ASC entry for AD 926, which includes within that entry, ”Athelstan------and governed all the kings that were in this island: -- First, Howel, King of West-Wales; and ------- And with covenants and oaths they ratified their agreement in the place called Emmet”. Since the Border is never specified, its location could equally have been ‘fixed’ at the same time as the splitting of the diocese and with the recital, which has been passed down through historical perception regarding ‘the Tamar’ and ‘the evictions’ from Exeter for AD 936.

Your criticism of the use of the word ‘origins’ in the CNMR, on the website you referred to, is misplaced and pedantic. At what point do we stop when considering things such as this? Academically, it may be of interest to go back to the original genetic soup but it has more meaning, for the purpose of identity, where paths begin to separate and we see reference (for reasons other than genetics), as previously quoted above, “This year a battle was fought between the Welsh in Cornwall and the people of Devonshire, at Camelford”. It is this early political separation that has had more impact on a total loss of any perception of Celticity for Devonshire, than anything that your so-called Cornish nationalists could ever have achieved (after the event) in the 20th century.

Contrary to what you say, the mediaeval peerage WAS based on the ownership of land, and an explanation of the relationship between Barons, Lords and Earls can be seen here http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/essay-3.html . There is probably nothing more that needs to be said about this here, except to say that the principal Earls of Cornwall, and subsequently the Dukes, most definitely did have ownership of ‘the County’. See items to of the Appendix to “the Case on behalf of the Duke of Cornwall”.

This also shows, that despite what you quote from Pennington, that the Stannary of Cornwall was most definitely an integral part of the Honor known as the Earldom of Cornwall from the start. This is clearly traced by the Officers of the Duchy, in “the Case for the Duke of Cornwall” (page 5 – 6) from the time of Reginald through Richard to Edmund when the Honor passed to his cousin Edward I of England, as an inheritance. The fact that the Stannary became separated from the body of the Earldom, in the 8. Richard I., did not mean that it was not then still an integral parcel of the Honor.

You also state, incorrectly, that “there was not a single Earldom”. It might have been correct to say ‘that there were Earls having differing levels of grant of ownerships and rights’ but the Honor known as Comitatus Cornubiǽ, based as it was on the Terra de Cornubia, was extra-territorial to the Crown and in the absence of an Earl was held, “ut de Comitatus in manu Regis existente”. Whatever parcels were granted or not granted, these were held respectively by grantee or Crown, ‘as of the Honor’!

Your whole concept of the Earldom and what became the Duchy is sheer speculation! There is nothing in the Charters, which makes any reference to the Earldom, as such, that could lead you to infer that it was based only on the immediately preceding ‘version’. The Crown, in fact, argued against any connection at all between the Earldom and Duchy in its evidence to ‘the arbitration’ 150 years ago! By showing that the first Charter enumeration was precisely the same as the inquisitio post mortem of Edmund (the last of the Great Earls), the Officers of the Duchy clearly proved that the Duchy was not only based on the Earldom of Terra de Cornubia, but referenced back to a time pre-dating its subjugation by Athesltan as being, “restored to its pristine Honor”.

You make a very general assumption, from your, allegedly, “Careful analysis of the Duchy Charters”, that “the Duke has extra rights such as to foreshore and riverbeds” in both “Devon and Cornwall”. As there is no such reference in the charters, the reasoning that enables you to arrive at such a profound conclusion would, truly, be worth reading. It certainly was not the conclusion that the Crown had arrived at with regard to the Cornish Foreshore, let alone that of Devonshire. In fact it took two years of legal discussion (150 years ago) for the Duchy to prove its right to the ownership of the Cornish Foreshore, in the infamous arbitration initiated by the Crown. Where is the equivalent legal discussion with regard to Devonshire? Neither have the full details of this legal arbitration ever been made public, as far as I know, except by a private source within the last twenty years.

With regard to your Statutory Instrument 1992, No. 2902: I would recommend that you get a second opinion on what it means. The best way to see how it works is to find out how various local planning authorities treat it. There seems to be a contradiction in dealing with this by involving both Crown Estates Commission and the Duchy, since the latter stands in place of the former within the Duchy. Would an implied interest, or right, in ‘the soil’, as a consequence of owning the Stannaries have any material relevance in the absence of any mine workings that impinge on the foreshore? The statute is general and made ambiguous, by using the combined reference to Devon & Cornwall, and only knowledge of the whys and wherefores of its practical application would be meaningful for further discussion. Perhaps some ambiguity also, in determining whether Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly are in England? SI 2902 is just another statute, by an alien and hostile Establishment that has been formulated from an entirely dishonest promotion of the Duchy as ‘a landed estate’.

An interesting map was included in the National Geographic magazine for May 2006 within an article on what is misrepresented as ‘The Duchy of Cornwall’ showing the extent of its (lack of) ownership of the foreshore in Devon. There are other maps but this statement from another site may be of interest.

“Some of the oldest parts of the Duchy of Cornwall are the Dart, Salcombe & Kingsbridge, Avon, Tamar, Looe, Helford and Camel estuaries and coastal foreshore around Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.” ( http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/aroundtheduchy_thewaters.htm )

Also, as I said in an earlier reply, the prima facie right to the foreshore in England is with the Crown, but within his Duchy of Cornwall it is with the Duke. Please reconcile this with ‘the Estates’! You are quite correct to suggest that the issue of foreshore does not reflect what is, or is not, the Duchy. For the same reasons that it is wrong to pretend, and promote, that the Estates equate to the Duchy of Cornwall.

You state that the Cornwall and Devon Stannaries were “not added to an already created Duchy” but were a part of it from its inception. This brings us back to your “critical analysis” of the Duchy charters (plus ‘the Act’), which you rightly say are the only legal documents having any legal bearing on “the definition of the Duchy”.

From ‘the Act’ which preceded these Charters, we are told that: “amongst other things it was agreed that the eldest sons of the Kings of England, scilicet those who should be next heirs to the Realm of England, should be Dukes of Cornwall, and that the County of Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the eldest sons of the Kings of England, who should be next heirs to the said Realm without being given elsewhere."

Before the enumeration in the first charter the King recites: “given unto our same son the name and honor of Duke of Cornwall, and have advanced him as Duke of Cornwall ; and have girt him with a sword, as is meet ; and lest hereafter in any wise it should be turned into doubt, what or how much the same Duke, or other the Dukes, of the said place, for the time being, ought to have in 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 : therefore we have given and granted for us and our heirs, and by this our present charter have confirmed.”

All the items enumerated were later confirmed as being: “and all other things above said, 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, nor be, in any manner whatsoever, given or granted by us or our heirs to any other or any others than to the Dukes of the said place”. The first item enumerated in this first Charter was: “the Shrievalty of Cornwall, with the appurtenances”. This reaffirms that the vicecomitatus is legally within the Comitatus Cornubiǽ now Ducatus Cornubiǽ!

You have twice avoided responding to what you dismissed as “minor points” and I invite you to explain the phrase “THE WHOLE COUNTY OF CORNWALL”. I shall remind you of the conclusion reached by the Officers of the Duchy in its legal dispute with 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"

You have been made aware of all this in the past but still exercise a profoundly closed English Establishment mind on the true legal position of the Duchy. They really do not pay you enough!

-------------------------------------------------

While the role of the Duchy may have originally evolved from Cornwall’s semi-independent status in the pre-Norman Conquest era, the practices of the Duchy over the past 900 years have been far from beneficial to Cornish people.

To me, it seems to have functioned as a licence for centuries of exploitation.

The key to this exploitation lies in the division of the original, ancient Devon and Cornwall Stannary parliament.

Originally, the tin miners of Cornwall and Devon were united, and held a combined Stannary Parliament at Hingston Down in Cornwall. In 1201, King John had granted a charter to the tin miners of Devon and Cornwall acknowledging “just and ancient customs and liberties”.

In the 11th century Devon large amounts of tin were found on Dartmoor, this was the largest find of tin so far, and exceeded that of Cornwall. But by the 13th century the Devon tin was worked out and the focus of tin production moved to Cornwall.

In the 13th century, King Edward I separated the ancient unified Stannary parliament of Devon and Cornwall. Edward’s fame is in being the ‘hammer of the Scots’ and as the conqueror of the Welsh. An English king distinguished by his aggression towards the Celtic nations. His reign coincides with the depletion of the Devon tin. Before Edward the Devonian and Cornish miners had been united in their Stannary parliament. Edward then splits the Devon and Cornwall stannaries, I suggest, because he knew the Devon mines were no longer able to deliver the tin, and so had lost their economic leverage over the English crown.

It is no coincidence some 30 years after the end of Edward’s reign, the Duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337, giving the son of the monarch exclusive access to the only remaining profitable tin resources left—those of Cornwall.

“When the Duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337 coinage formed a significant source of revenue.

”The Duchy was also probably the largest single mineral lord in the south-west. Most of the fundus (river-bed) of the principal rivers, and some of the estuaries, were owned by them, and considerable royalties were gained from tin-streaming activities in those areas In 1497 the Cornish revolted against new Stannary laws imposed by Prince Arthur, Duke of Cornwall. As a result the charters were confiscated, to be renewed by the Charter of Pardon issued in 1508 in return for a payment of £1,000. This included the right, through the Stannary Parliament, to veto any statute or proclamation which was ‘to the prejudice’ of the tinners”

http://www.cornish-mining.org.uk/story/medieval.htm

But even before the formal establishment of the Duchy which increased their exploitation, Cornish miners had been at a disadvantage.

“From the earliest records in the twelfth century through to abolition in 1838 the tax levied on tin production in Cornwall was at double the rate of that applied in Devon.”

I see this as happening because while tin could be mined throughout Cornwall, and was the major part of the Cornish economy, in Devon tin could only be mined in a certain area—and this area became exceptionally productive for a short while, between the 12th and 13th centuries—but tin mining did not take up the whole area or the whole economy of Devon. Because tin mining was more important to Cornwall’s economy than it was to Devon’s, the English state could exert more tax leverage on Cornish miners because it was Cornwall’s entire livelihood, not just a part of it. Tin miners were more expensive in Devon because there were fewer of them than in Cornwall and the mining area was much smaller, but for two centuries in medieval Devon, tin yields were greater, so the ‘tax break’ evolved.

Politically, Edward I may have divided the miners of Devon and Cornwall to break up an economic and political challenge to his authority. By bribing the Devonian miners with their historical tax break and diminishing resources and separating them from the comparatively underpaid Cornish miners with their yet to be discovered and still exploitable tin reserves his intention may be have been to divide the miners, and prevent them from getting together to present a common case; which the previous unified Devon and Cornwall Stannary at Hingston Down—the rights of which had been affirmed by King John—would have enabled.

With Edward’s decision, the unified Stannary as seen under King John, the Devon miners were cut off from their Cornish counterparts, and isolated to a few Stannary towns in west Devon. The Devon mines were exhausted, and no longer of economic importance. The ‘Duchy’ however, was the future of tin, and the English monarchy relentlessly drew on it for their own economic advantage for centuries afterwards, with the Cornish having no claim on their own natural resources. Tin mining may be extinct in Cornwall now, but if the price of tin should suddenly increase on the world market, the ‘poorest’ part of the UK may become once again very profitable to those who, centuries ago, made sure they had exclusive control and ownership of this resource, that in its day, was as valuable as oil is now.

A good well-rounded summary.

Fulup,

The only people who have ever considered Exeter to have once been the “Cornish capital” are the Cornish nationalists. Exeter was the capital of Dumnonia, not Cornwall.

There is no primary evidence that there was a King Howel of Cornwall at the time of Athelstan. The last Cornish king (or more likely local chieftain), for which there is any evidence was Doniert (or Dungarth). The Howel, King of West Wales referred to in the ASC entry for 926 AD was almost certainly Hywel Dda, who was king of the western regions of Wales during the reign of Athelstan, and was known to have been on good terms with the latter. The term “West Wales” does not always refer to Dumnonia or Cornwall.

If the medieval peerage was based on the ownership of land, then the Earldom of Devon (as well as that of many other counties) would have implied that Devon (together with other counties) was separate from England. I suggest that you study the last Earldom of Cornwall a little more closely to see what its composition was.

So Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 2902 is now classed as “just another statute, by an alien and hostile Establishment” is it? Could these aliens be extra-terrestrial by any chance? How many more conspiracy theories are you and your nationalist colleagues going to dream up?

Acts of Parliament do not precede Charters. They follow Charters, to give the contents legal standing. To say “we are told that …” is meaningless. Either the Act states what you claim, or it doesn’t, and as it appears to be no longer in existence you cannot possibly know for certain. It is most unlikely that the Act would extend the territorial rights of the Duchy beyond what is stated in the Charters. The “Shrievalty of Cornwall” refers to the right of the Duke to appoint the Sheriff of Cornwall, not to own all the land. Although the Charters do not mention the previous Earldom, they do list the 17 manors, which constituted the Earldom, as being Duchy land in Cornwall.

What the Duchy Officers regarded as “always been construed and treated”, in the Foreshore Case, was their own opinion, and did not constitute a point of law. Also, if the Cornish Stannary was a part of the original Earldom of Cornwall, how can you explain how it is that the Cornwall and Devon Stannaries were originally one combined Stannary? Clearly, the Duchy Officers had not done their homework.

ExeValleyBoy,

An important point that you missed out concerning the Charter of Pardon (1508) was that although it made provision for the veto of any statute that was to the prejudice of the Cornish tinners, this was in place of the right of legislation, which the Cornish Stannary Parliament had previously enjoyed, and which the Devon Stannary Parliament continued to enjoy (not having been suspended, as the Cornish Stannary Parliament had). However, the 1508 Charter was never ratified by Act of Parliament, so it never got into the Statute books. In the Cornish Stannary Convocation of 18th January 1588, the Cornish stannators petitioned for the restoration of the right to legislate, just as the Devon stannators continued to do. Nothing was ever done to give effect to their plea.

It is not strictly true that Cornish tin production was taxed (via the coinage system) at double the rate of Devon tin production. Coinage (or tax) was based on different fractions of the output in the two Stannaries, so the rates were different. When the value of refined tin was £9 per thousandweight, the tax rates were equal in the different systems. When the value was less than £9 per thousandweight, the Cornish tax rate was effectively higher, but when the value was greater than £9 per thousandweight the Devon tax rate was effectively higher.

Source: “Stannary Law – The history of the mining law of Cornwall and Devon”, by Robert R. Pennington (Professor of Commercial Law, University of Birmingham), 1973.

I should point out that whilst EVB is correct about Devon's tin mining peaking in the 11th-13th century, it certainly did not cease tin production thereafter.

Tin production continued through to the 20th Century, although the volumes of tin produced in Devon were more volatile than in Cornwall, with a number of 'boom' periods, and an equal number of 'busts'.

http://www.walkingdartmoor.co.uk/tinmining.asp

Although tin mining on Dartmoor ceased in 1939 (as stated) tin was also produced outside of Dartmoor, although never that far away. A tin and tungsten mine operated at Hemerdon (near Plympton) as recently as the 1980's.

Perhaps it is only in those early centuries that Devon's tin production exceeded Cornwall's, but Tin production in the 16th Century was still substantial (it was 25% higher in this century than it was in the 14th) although at this time that amounted to less than half of the tin produced in Cornwall.

For those interested in devon's tin mining history, here is an interesting site.

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/040/04008001.pdf

The following refers to the relative tin production in Devon and in Cornwall.

"We can be most confident when speaking of the
annual production of tin metal in Devon throughout
the period. Hatcher (1973, 152-63) has published
detailed figures for the years 1243-1549, and a certain
amount of data is available for earlier periods. From
these figures it is clear that throughout the second
half of the 12th century production of tin in Devon
was greater than in Cornwall, but that at some time in
the 13th century the Cornish level of production
overtook that of Devon and thereafter never lost the
lead. In the second half of the 14th century and early
15th century production in Devon was sometimes as
little as one-tenth that of Cornwall. Production in
Devon increased in the second half of the 15th
century, but even at the peak of the industry in the
early 16th century it was only one-third to one-half of
the Cornish level. Despite this, the scale of working
in Devon throughout the medieval period was never
insignificant."

Ozzie Exile,

Up to the middle of the 16th Century Devon Produced 25-40% of the tin that Cornwall produced. During this time tin production was very low. After the 1540s, Cornwall's production took off and Devon's production was only about 1/9-1/10 that of Cornwalls.

Ozzie Exile

Could you tell me the name of the last Dartmoor tin mine that closed in 1939?

There were actually two Stannary Charters, one in 1198 (under Richard I) and another in 1201 (under King John). I see now, having actually read them for the first time, that even these earlier Charters were only set out for the benefit of the English crown. The phrase “just and ancient customs and liberties” for the Devon and Cornwall tin miners may seem good taken out of context, but placed back in the context of the entire document the statement, and the objectives of both charters, takes on a very different character.

The text of the charters can be read here;

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1201Tinmines.html

They very clearly show the huge economic importance the English crown attached to the production of tin in Devon and Cornwall.

“We order you, on behalf of the Lord King... And you shall see to it that he has tin miners with that freedom which they should have, and which they have been accustomed to have, and you will see that he has all those lawful men whom the same William will name for you. You shall see that they expedite this matter, that they bring aid and counsel for the keeping of the king's stamps, and all the products of those stannaries, and see to the disposal of the profit from the same.”

The freedom of the tin miners is asserted, but this freedom arises not from benevolence, but from the taxes delivered to the crown by the tin industry. The practice of tin mining is to be left unrestrained and the miners retain their ‘ancient’ rights, but only because tin mining is so profitable to the crown.

Then it goes on, in a more sinister vein;

“Forbid all men free admission to your bailiwick lest, without permission of the same William, they carry away any tin either by land or sea. You will also give him much help in expediting the present business of the Lord King, that it may prosper, and that your Lord King may not suffer loss through neglect on your part.”

Control of the precious resource, even to the extent of restricting free movement in and out of Devon and Cornwall, was uppermost in the minds of those in charge.

A second smelting of tin, to create a final refined product, could usually only take place in either Bodmin or Exeter. The only circumstances where the second smelting was permissible elsewhere was in a rented house set up specifically for this purpose by agency of the government, and presumably supervised by them.

“Likewise in any town, other than the city of Exeter or the town of Bodmin, where there has been a second smelting, a house shall be taken by rent for the Lord King's service. And the whole weighing and marking of the second smelting shall be done there, and let none presume to make a second smelting, weighing, and marking elsewhere, as he loves himself and his own....”

The threat to those doing unauthorized tin refinement—‘as he loves himself and his own’—is very clearly made.

In the Charter of 1201 there is an interesting section right at the start;

“Be it known that we have granted that all tin miners of Cornwall and Devon are free of pleas of the natives as long as they work for the profit of our ferm or for the marks for our new tax; for the stannaries are on our demesne.”

By ‘natives’ I would imagine they are referring to people who were born there. So what the charter is saying is that the rights of people in Devon and Cornwall can be ignored so long as the tin is mined only for the profit of the English crown.

Rather than representing a charter for freedom either in Cornwall or Devon, the stannaries and the Duchy that followed, seem to have been an early form of colonial exploitation, where the miners were given freedom only in so far as it profited the English crown, and in which the free exploitation of the tin reserves were allowed to over-ride the rights or ‘pleas’ of any of the ‘natives’—presumably in any case when a tin miner wanted your farm’s land to open a mine, or diverted the course of a river that you depended on to water your land. In such cases, your objections were automatically overruled, because the tin mattered more.

This seems very similar to some cases in some poor countries today, when oil or mineral corporations are given preferential treatment by governments in these countries, operate above the normal law, and either throw local people off the land or are allowed to get away with poisoning their surrounding environment with their industrial activity.