Talk:Duchy of Cornwall

2005 comments

I really don't want to get embroiled in an edit war, but I confess I was rather miffed to see Astrotrain delete the entire paragraph I had written explaining the meanings that "the Duchy" holds for Cornish regionalists and others. Surely this is at least worth a mention — how many times have we not heard somebody casually making the point that "Cornwall is a duchy, not a county"? How many websites could I not cite from people and organizations claiming that the Duchy is, in fact, the foundation-stone of Cornwall's actual sovereignty within the UK? Mind you, I'm not going to argue whether such a position is right or not — and if I was, I certainly wouldn't do it on wikipedia. But surely it's not POV to mention that these points of view exist and to explain them a little. QuartierLatin1968 02:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree and it is just you QuartierLatin1968 it seems to be politically biased vandalism. Please Astrotrain provide your reasons or leave it alone! Bretagne 44 11/4/05

If Prince Charles fell under a bus tomorrow, then the monarch's eldest surviving son would be Prince Andrew, but surely the title of Duke of Cornwall (and the accompanying Duchy) would go to Prince William, who would also be Heir Apparent. PatGallacher 16:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

The title would become dormant, and the income from the Duchy would go to The Queen. When Frederick, Prince of Wales died during the lifetime of his father, King George II, his eldest son, the future King George III, inherited his Dukedom of Edinburgh (and was soon created Prince of Wales), but did not become Duke of Cornwall. To hold the Dukedom of Cornwall (and thus get the income from the Duchy of Cornwall), one must be both the monarch's eldest surviving son and the Heir Apparent. If no one is both, then no one is Duke of Cornwall. Proteus (Talk) 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the article is badly worded, since it implies that in the scenario outlined Prince Andrew would become Duke of Cornwall. PatGallacher 17:13, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Found the origional text of the charters[1]. They are accessed via the sidebar (->Forshore case->the Duchy). Throughout, they continue to refer to the "county of cornwall". The following text is the complete sentence that is currently only partially quoted in this article.

Moreover, we have granted to the same Duke for us and our heirs that he receive and have the scutage and profit of scutage, as well of the fees aforesaid as of all other fees appertaining to the aforesaid castles, manors, honors, lands, and tenements, which we have lately given and granted to the said Duke, as well out of the said county of Cornwall as within the same county, as annexed and united to his Duchy aforesaid;

This clearly differenciates between the county and the duchy. Overwise why would lands within Cornwall have to be annexed if the whole county is already considered part of the duchy. josh (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are selectively quoting from the TGG site and out of context:

Firstly - as to why the need to annex? - Historically the Earldom of Cornwall was a complete and well understood entity which included both territory & administration, stannaries, property, all revenues and royal prerogatives, which because of inconsistency of past grants (to king's favourites) became fragmented. The first Duchy Charter of 17th March 1337 was an enumeration of what this Earldom, and which was now a Duchy, properly comprised - intended to clarify past severences and restore them to the Honor "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".

Secondly: - There is a clear distinction between the Honor (e.g. Kingdom/king, Dukedom/duke etc.) and its administrative structure(s) relating to property and taxation within it (e.g. shire/county/hundred). Historically 'county' derives from Earldom whereas a tax district derives from a shire - rendered in latin as Comitatus (Earldom/County) and Vicecomitatus (a tax district). Therefore, the tax district of Cornwall is annexed and united to the Honor of Cornwall "forever". Since Cornwall, territorially, is both 'Honor' and tax district it seems more equitable to refer to it as the Honor (the Duchy) rather than its subsidiary (a county) - as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Constitution [Kilbrandon 1973]. Please see [2] (->Foreshore case->the Duchy - TGG Comment) regarding official use of 'the county' etc.. -- TGG 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

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)

More info

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)

Two pages for the duchy

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

Agree that there should be a merge/redirect of Cornwall (territorial duchy) into Duchy of Cornwall. MLA 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cornwall_%28territorial_duchy%29 Gulval 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to the topic, I can see that I was not the only one who was confused by these two articles. Regardless of the theoretical objections to the merge/delete, as it stands now the two articles are confusing duplicates of each other, differentiated only by some POV forking. nadav

De facto status

Would someone please explain why the phrase de facto is being removed from the first para? To simply delete with nothing more than a fascile comment that there is nothing de facto about it beggars belief! -- TGG 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no part of the duchy that is not enshrined in law. Obviously the duchy itself was defined by the charters of 1337 and the definition of England was given by the [1978 Interpretation Act]. josh (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, in that case, that 'de facto' automatically implies unlawful? Thanks for the link but failed miserably in accessing it. Perhaps you may care to quote the relevant part for us to see? Since I disagree with you on the 'de facto' issue, who would arbitrate? -- TGG 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Schedule 1 states

"England" means, subject to any alteration of boundaries under Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972, the area consisting of the counties established by section 1 of that Act, Greater London and the Isles of Scilly. [1st April 1974].

De facto means adopted by custom rather than a specific law. This is clearly not the case with the English duchies. josh (talk)

The point of dispute is over the origins of the Duchy rather than the Imperial States modifying meanings to suit its own modern agenda. There is nothing to suggest that de facto is not also a legal state of affairs - particularly if its origins are wilfully misrepresented - it exists because it is accepted as such (de facto). However, I have modified the para to make it incontovertibly correct.

If the current status of the Duchy of Cornwall, as simply an Estate, is by legitimate means, you will perhaps be able to point to the various Acts by which this was done? Of particular interest, to me, is when, and how, did the revenue collecting powers of the Sheriff (the officer of the Dukes) become transferred to the Crown. The creation of the Duchy vested all public revenues to the Dukes! In fact, the vicecomitatus and the right to appoint the sheriff (as hitherto accustomed to be done) was the principal item enumerated in the Great Charter!

I would also appreciate your opinion on the fact that the Duchy, at the time of creation, was not considered to be in England (the country) by the first Duke of Cornwall. Similarly, there are many references, subsequent to the creation, that show Cornwall to be distinct from England. Historically, this has been the understanding of the Cornish people up until the present day! -- TGG 21:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I understand your objections better. My main problem with inserting de facto in the first sentence was that it implied that it was some wishy washy insitution that wasn't fully qualified in law. The fact that some of the rights that the duchy has are now being ignored/denied/unclaimed doesn't distract from the important fact that it is a duchy in England. I am happy to put in a sentance in the opening para about the controversal nature of the modern interpretation.

As regards to whether the duchy was in England when it was created, it is irrelevent. The opening sentence states that the Duchy of Cornwall is a duchy in England. The definition of England in the Interpetation Act makes certain of that fact. Part II of Schedule 2 also makes it clear that this act applies to all previous Acts of Parliament (as the charters were defined as in 1605?).

The current wording is a bit arkward. I would propose something along the lines of

"The Duchy of Cornwall is one of the two Royal duchies in the England (with the Duchy of Lancaster). The true nature of the duchy, and whether it should be considered to be in England, is a matter of dispute within Cornwall."

josh (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for that! That seems to be a very concise way of putting it and I fully accept that form of representation. I have inserted it (after removing a superfluous 'the') into the article. -- TGG 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Duchy of Cornwall dispute

Restored deleted section to main article. Please do not delete this section from the article under the pretence of 'opinion' -- TGG 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some sentances were clearly 'opinion', as you put it. Please attribute opinions to their sources if including them, and try to provide citations for the facts lists. 82.153.105.112 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you anonymous? Your editing has made the entry nonsensical and I shall revert in the next day or two -- TGG 12:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I can't be bothered to log in... I think you'll find that editing without logging in is allowed. I suggest a read of Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing.

Please give examples of where the edits are, as you say, 'nonsensical'. The reasons for each are in the edit log, and I would request that you similarly justify any reversions that you believe are necessary.82.153.105.112 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted text and re-phrased some of it. The reference to 'nonsensical' was because the removal of an introductory statement (referring to a subsequent charter) left the followed quoted text totally incorrect within the relative context intended - illustrating to me that you did not know what your were doing. The problem with 'anonymous' updates - unqualified, as they were with any discussion - suggests vandalism! The over-riding reference to the whole of the Duchy Dispute is the discrepancy between what the Duchy said 150 years ago (when defending a vested interest) to what is being 'officially' propagandised today. However, please identify specific points that need referencing. -- TGG 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute then it is also with the Treasury Solicitors agency for Bona Vacantia Division. I have added the following link which seems to state that Cornwall is a Duchy, for the purposes of Bona Vacantia at least.

In addition the the Treasury Solicitors agency for Bona Vacantia Division considers The Duchy of Cornwall to comprise the County of CornwallBona Vacantia - See Jurisdiction.

Bretagne 44 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We have invested him with the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, per sertum in capite et annulum in digito aureum ac virgam auream juxta morem." (the French has presumably been translated but not the Latin (can translation of Latin be added?)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Offices

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)

George III

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)

POV Tag

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)

parliamentary injunction?

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)

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)

Attorney-General

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)

I've now changed this as no-one disagreed --Intacart (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Dispute" section

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)

Taxes

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)

In Parliament

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)

Use of the term "duchy" to refer to the county

It is claimed that [3] 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)

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)

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)

Right to veto legislation

The reference used is actually just a comment piece [4] on a prior article[5] 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)

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)

Sadly, when I added a Hansard reference to Parliament needing the consent of the Duke of Cornwall prior to passing certain legislation [the VETO issue], I was branded a 'fanatic' and my info was removed by NHH and Ghmyrtle on grounds that the reference was not of sufficient quality, yet user Ghymrtle has now added the same information referenced from the Guardian newspaper - and that is deemed ok! Moreover, when I added information regarding the dukes rights which was written by a barrister for the Guardian newspaper, these same people removed it on grounds that it was not a suitable reference. Unbelievable!! There is clearly a small cabal of people controlling this duchy site and users need to get past these people in order to get their information out. Brings WIKI in disrepute. This is what barrister David Gollancz wrote for the Guardian on 31 Oct 2011: "The duke enjoys a variety of legal immunities, which otherwise are reserved to the government. If it is proposed to include any land belonging to the duchy in a national park, the duke's consent is required; an order designating an environmentally sensitive area cannot be made without the duke's agreement; laws that enable utilities to compulsorily acquire land and go on to land to carry out repairs without the owner's consent do not apply to duchy lands. The duke is not required to pay income tax on income from the duchy(over £20m in 2009/10)." Why dont the cabal want the WIKI reader to see this?Salmon123 (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

I've tweaked the wording slightly because both Hansard written answer [6] and the Guardian article on which David Gollanz's piece is based make it clear that the Prince of Wales has the right to veto any legislation that could interfere with any of his private interests. In fact DG's article has nothing to say on the veto itself and only mentions it in the first line before launching into a general rant about the Duchy. Eckerslike (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Infobox

Duchy of Corwall is a duchy which is a territorial unit. As per Template:Infobox country: "This Infobox template is used to generate an infobox for the righthand side of two specific types of article: on a country or territory, or on a geopolitical organisation." While certain estates are directly attached to it it still historical and currently is a territorial unit of the UK.Spshu (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No it is not a territory in the sense that template is talking about – any more than my back garden is – and it is certainly not one with a "government" as this infobox now explicitly classifies it. You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about and your repeated insertion of this infobox is borderline vandalism. And when I suggested you should justify it on talk, I meant wait for a response and aim to get some consensus via a talk page discussion, not simply blind revert again and then post-facto add some bizarre claims in a bid to justify your edit-warring. I am restoring the previous version. Post some third-pafrty evidence that your idiosyncratic assessment is correct and/or get some support from other editors here for the inclusion of the infobox. Until then, stop unilaterally adding nonsense and erroneous content. N-HH talk/edits 22:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

N-HH is absolutely right. The Duchy is a business, and an inheritance, but it is incorrect to refer to it as a territory. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick round-up and some links, assuming this knowledge is lacking. At the first level, the UK divides into the four territorial and political units, usually called countries, of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (plus there are various associated more minor offshore and overseas territories). Those are indeed all countries, nations or territories of the sort that the infobox template in question would apply to without being sovereign states themselves. Each of those four divide further, administratively and politically, into counties (to oversimplify slightly). Cornwall itself is one of those counties and a unitary authority, and its page has the appropriate infobox for that. The Duchy of Cornwall, as described on this page, is a slightly odd historical entity that consists primarily of non-contiguous estates and land owned throughout the UK (mostly not even in Cornwall) and held for the Duke of Cornwall, along with certain limited and random accrued rights in the modern county that attach to the duke. There are some political and constitutional oddities and debates around its precise status, and the term is sometimes loosely applied to the county as a whole, but the "Duchy of Cornwall" is simply not a discrete territorial or political sub-unit of the UK in the sense you are implying, and you will not find any reputable source or analysis that will claim that it is. Everyone gets edits wrong, especially in areas that may not be familiar to them, but it's always an idea not to edit-war your mistakes in over and over again, especially once it has been pointed out to you that you are making a mistake. I hope the above clarifies, and saves you the trouble of more edit-warring and/or having to do all your own research into this. N-HH talk/edits 23:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you take your own advice and read the article. You have made it clear that you intend to be an edit warring maniac by not reading the article and stating that I am making bizarre claims. Spshu (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What is clear is that the Duchy of Cornwall is neither a territory nor a geopolitical organisation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And that you have offered no evidence in support of your suggestion that it is or that it forms part of the UK's territorial or geopolitical structure, or any evidence that you have any knowledge of how the UK is constituted or the difference between Cornwall itself and the duchy estates. You want to make this change; you have to provide that evidence and get consensus for the change. At present, as noted, you have neither, yet you insist on the right to make these changes and then go running to noticeboards to complain. The only other editor to comment has conspicuously failed to back you. I do understand what the duchy as described here is and have in fact read the article. By reverting your changes and doing my best to explain why you are wrong I am helping to preserve the (relative) integrity of information here, not being a "maniac". N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, neither of you have bothered read the article. So no, N-HH you have not attempted to "preserve the (relative) integrity of information here". Do estates come with veto powers or a county. Yes, that is completely in the article and sourced there in.

I have the right to make the changes because WP indicates that we should be bold. Well, when you insist that you will edit war then do so and treat people poorly what do you expect except to be reported.

To take this from another direction, I will repost what I put up on the ANI/3RR board: "Just because I try not proliferate additional infoboxes by not creating new ones for 'one offs' and use existing infoboxes does not mean that effects the 'accuracy and integerity of info on Wikipedia here.' The infoboxes are total background stuff that no reader need deal with." Instead you treated it with some sort of absolute proclamation about its status. Spshu (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ghmyrtle – although I do know he is quite well versed in the issue at hand and he certainly has not said anything here to warrant your conclusion that he has not read it – but I have read the article, as I said I have, along with plenty of other relevant material besides. I don't why you're insisting I have not: you have no obvious reason to assume I haven't and you now have my statement that I have. And yes, you, along with every other editor here, have the right to make changes; and people have the right to oppose them and revert them. Being "bold" doesn't mean anyone has the unilateral right to chuck anything on to any page, against consensus or in the face of reality. And edit wars take two.

Anyway this meta-debate is all very interesting, but the key point is that neither this article nor any serious third-party source says, or comes anywhere close to suggesting, the duchy is a "country" or "a territorial unit of the UK" and hence that this infobox is appropriate. Equally, you still haven't presented any evidence that it is. You have now made vague references to the duchy "com[ing] with veto powers" and "a county". Neither statement is true – the duke has very limited and formal powers, in specific contexts, that in some cases might just about be described as a "veto" in the loosest sense, but this has little practical consequence and he certainly does not get the county with the duchy. Even if either were true, how does that make the duchy a "country" or "territorial unit of the UK"? Anyway, I don't need to say any more and won't in response. I've wasted more than enough energy on this nonsense and, as it has been from the outset, it is up to you to provide some hard evidence and sources for your specific claims about the status of the duchy and its "government" and hence demonstrate that the infobox is appropriate. N-HH talk/edits 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

←See you claim you read the article then show in not you clearly did not address an alternative solution proposed as the infobox is only tagged as "country" infobox in the background and does NOT effect the information in the article. Nor have you claimed that the information in the infobox is incorrect. Well, you make vague reference about counties and "territorial units" to show some how you have expertise. Yes, you have wasted my energy on your nonsense. You seem to get stuck at the point where the article states "principal activity of the duchy is the management of its land and properties." but that is not its only activities. As the article is not named "Estates of the Duchy of Cornwall".

• [Country]: "2. A set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc." - Yes, the article does suggested that it is a country, as a country is a territory with an attached ethnic group. Cornwall is a country as it has an territory (Cornwall with a people (Cornish). The Duchy is just the part of the current political make up.

Hard evidence and source about the duchy is in the definition of a duchy and in the article, hence the refering you to the article.

• "A duchy is a territory, fief, or domain ruled by a duke or duchess." While duke/duchess titles are currently issued with out any connected territories, the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall was created from the earldom/county of Corwall in 1377, so it does have a territory. Although alot of the feudal laws have dropped away, it is still the basis for law and government in the UK, Canada and the United States of America. There is nothing in the article or your arguments that indicates that there has been any reduction in the territory of the duchy.
• Bona Vacantia in Corwall: "Under bona vacantia, the estate of a person who dies in Cornwall with no will or surviving relatives passes to the Duchy of Cornwall."[7] That clearly connects the Duchy to an area.
• Writing in the Guardian, lawyer David Gollancz commented that:

The duchy exercises a unique range of legal powers, which elsewhere are reserved for the crown (in other words, the government). If you die domiciled in Cornwall and there is no one entitled to your estate, the duchy takes it. If a company with a registered office in Cornwall is dissolved leaving assets, the duchy takes the assets. The Duke of Cornwall is the competent harbour authority for the Port of St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. As such, he has the power to impose regulations for the management of vessels in the harbour, backed up by the power to impose fines. He has the right to appoint Church of England priests within the duchy. Besides these functions, the duke enjoys a variety of legal immunities, which otherwise are reserved to the government. If it is proposed to include any land belonging to the duchy in a national park, the duke's consent is required; an order designating an environmentally sensitive area cannot be made without the duke's agreement; laws that enable utilities to compulsorily acquire land and go on to land to carry out repairs without the owner's consent do not apply to duchy lands. The duke is not required to pay income tax on income from the duchy (over £20m in 2009/10).

Prince Charles's legislation veto shows the duchy is no ordinary private estate

Above all, it surely cannot be right that the duchy's management of its 1,700 hectares of woodland, 2,580km of coastline, of the riverbeds of most rivers in Cornwall and Devon and of the foreshore – all gifted to it by law – are immune from direct scrutiny by the public.

Prince Charles's legislation veto shows the duchy is no ordinary private estate

• "Bruton v. ICO the first tier tribunal found that the duchy was a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.18
• The Guardian newspaper reported in 2011 that, since 2005, the Prince of Wales has been asked to give his consent to a number of draft bills on matters ranging from town planning to gambling, because it could affect the interests of the Duchy of Cornwall. Andrew George, Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for St Ives, commented that "The duchy asserts that it is merely a private estate. Most people will be astonished to learn that it appears to have effective powers of veto over the government."19
  

"Being "bold" doesn't mean anyone has the unilateral right to chuck anything on to any page, against consensus or in the face of reality." Then why do you claims as much? I have "chucked" nothing and countered your edit summaries with reasonable answers (although you did not like it - thus were not a "blind revert") and still you continued reversing after the talk topic was established and declared (in effect) you would continue edit warring. Also consensus means that you have to atleast attempt to change my mind. Also, from experience two is not enough to be considered a voting consensus either. Spshu (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You still clearly don't understand the distinction between Cornwall and the duchy estates (which, together with some arcane and obscure mostly ceremonial rights and powers, and the title of duke, are what the duchy consists of) and nor have you presented any hard evidence in the wall of text – beyond your own theorising and purported deduction – that the duchy, for all its constitutional oddness (which I am well aware of, as I keep telling you, and which in terms of substantive practical effect is quite limited anyway), is commonly described or categorised in real-world sources as a "country" or "territorial unit" with a "government" of the sort intended to be covered by such an infobox. Even Cornwall itself wouldn't warrant this infobox (and as explained to you, the article on Cornwall proper already has the appropriate political unit infobox for its modern status, that for a UK local authority). Citing and relying on the misleading opening sentence from the WP article on duchies does you no favours either.

And no, consensus does not mean that I have to convince you or that your additions get to stay until anyone does. If you want to add material, the onus is on you to justify it once challenged. You have some learning to do about how consensus, and WP content development, works, as well as UK politics (an area you don't seem to have evinced much interest in or knowledge of before). And I love your criticism that "two is not enough to be considered a voting consensus". And one is? N-HH talk/edits 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I indeed understand the distiction between the Cornwall and the Duchy estates. However you keep on divorce the estates from the Duchy. That is hard evidence, you may not hand wave news sources as the Guardian away. Yes, consensus is too that you must convince me. Go look it up in a dictionary since you are so intent on failing to comprend the definitions put before you. It is you that have some learning to do about how consensus works. I don't have to prove to you any about UK politics nor your (poor) claim of knowing UK politics have any standings. "(an area you don't seem to have evinced much interest in or knowledge of before)" -- that statement alone shows you have even looked at all into.

Additional as pointed out before, the infoboxes are not "additional material", just a table to summarize information in the article. So you have no real justification per you own meassuring stick "justified", ie. sourced. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't even write proper English, yet you're telling me to go and look in a dictionary? This is now beyond a joke, as is your addition of the infobox yet again, despite everything that's been pointed out to you, your failure to achieve consensus or agreement from anyone else at all for this addition and your failure to provide any single serious source that explicitly asserts that the Duchy of Cornwall is a "country" with a "government"; and despite the fact that you recently went to the 3RR noticeboard to complain about edit warring. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As you should well know on WP assaults on one's command of the language is not allowed. Yes, this has been beyond a joke as you have not point out any thing but "hand waving", ie. you don't like the logic so you just state that I am wrong and attack my "proper English". Again, you side step the fact that the infobox doesn't not add any information not already found in the article (or related article). Go done the info in the infobox and tell me what is so false about the information? As I have pointed out the "Infobox country" is a background and can be justified as to not develop a "Infobox royal duchy" just for two articles when the "Infobox country" will easily act as a subsitute. But no you gloss right over that.

Second, a country doesn't imply a government as per the definition as previously pointed out and false argument that you continue to trot out.

Royal Commission on the Constitution: "Just as the people of Scotland and Wales tend to resent the description of their countries as regions of the United Kingdom, so the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county. The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the 14th century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship, but it established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall, on which our witnesses laid great stress."Spshu (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer every single one of your points (and haven't to date, although I've done my best), because half of them are ridiculous and the other half irrelevant; plus I've wasted enough time on this. That said, taking each of your paras above: 1) remarking on your command of English is more than fair enough given your insistence on loudly declaiming what words and political concepts supposedly mean and your instructions that I should go and look in a dictionary; 2) your infobox has a sub-heading "government"; 3) I know all about the Kilbrandon commission thank you, but do not know what that one quote has to do with this issue. Finally, for the fortieth time, where is any source that explicitly asserts that the Duchy of Cornwall, as described here, is a "country" or a "territory" with a "government", as you continue to argue it is and as your infobox suggests it is? And where is any other WP editor backing you up on this? Saying "it's the best/closest infobox we have" doesn't cut it. It's totally wrong, misleading and inappropriate. N-HH talk/edits 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for compromise

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And the infobox nonetheless got shoved in. Anyway, I've taken it out again. I can't be bothered to spend yet more hours, over a year later, on this, but this page simply cannot have an irrelevant and misleading infobox designed for self-governing territorial entities. I initially tried to remove the explicit reference to the the duchy's "government" from the field in the box rather than taking the whole thing out, but it seems that is not possible. So the whole thing is gone. Please do not reinsert it unless you can sort that problem out and unless you actually get consensus to put it back in. N-HH talk/edits 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

@Spshu and N-HH: 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)

The Duchy

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)

Arms of Duchy & St Pirin's Flag

Spshu, I have reverted your revert of 17:20 6 Sept 2014, which now leaves the info-box without the flag of St Piran. Please explain further your comment: "Duh, it list that there 2 different use flags, civil & ducal; Cornwall article state any diff. which is only the ducal estate)". I can't decipher it. As far as I am aware the Duchy of Cornwall is not the same legal or corporate entity as the County of Cornwall, thus the two have different arms/flags. If you can provide a reliable source which says the Duchy of Cornwall uses the Flag of St Piran, that should resolve the matter. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

No, you have removed the Duke's flag also.

The edit summary is in response to your edit summary: "Duchy is not same as County, see article Cornwall, about the county, clearly a different entity with own flag. Duke of Cornwall does not fly the flag of Cornwall, nor does Cornwall Co. Council fly the bezants arms"

There are flag for separate use, civil flag, Civil ensign, state flags, state ensign, which the UK has in great abundance (see: Flag of the United Kingdom). The queen would fly the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom or her personal standard rather than the UK flag. Or the Prince of Wales using his modified Royal Standard in England and Wales. So, the Duke would not fly the Cornwall civil flag while the Cornwall Council (not really the County Council as the Isles of Scilly has its own council and is a part of the the county) and the people would. While only the Duke or his main office would fly the Ducal flag and the Council and the people would not.

The 1969-73 Royal Commission on the Constitution Report or the Kilbrandon Report indicates that the County is the Duchy: "The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the 14th century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship, but it established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown."

Magna Britannia: volume 3: Cornwall: "It seems most probable, that the Dukes and Earls of Cornwall continued to possess that shadow of sovereignty which they were allowed to retain immediately after the conquest of the county by Athelstan. Carew speaks of it as an entire state by the name of a kingdom, principality, duchy or earldom." "Large revenues were annexed to the duchy (fn. 8), and the immediate government of the county vested in the Duke, who has his Chancellor, Attorney, and Solicitor-general, and other officers, his court of Exchequer, with the appointment of sheriffs, &c. &c."

"Acts of the Westminster Parliament from 1422, 1465 and 1539 affirmed that:'…the comutatis Cornubia [now county of Cornwall] should always remain as a Duchy…'"

The only difference between the County and Duchy is the Ducal Estate properties. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The the statment: "Cornwall article state any diff. which is only the ducal estate". It should state that: The Cornwall article doesn't indicate any difference between the county & duchy (on a government territory basis) as you claim. The only difference being the addition of the directly owned holding of the Duchy. Spshu (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the flag at its first historical mention is called the Standard of Cornwall. In a paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Vexillology by Phil Rendle, Cornwall - The Mysteries of St Piran tags it as the "Flag of Cornwall" stating "From its first reference in the 1830s St Piran’s flag has now become the emblem of Cornwall." (his emphasis) So, it represents Cornwall in any form, not just the County, thus is still registered as the County's flag at the Flag Institute. Spshu (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal commissions do not dictate the law. They simply make recommendations which the government choose to accept or, as in the majority of occasions, ignore. The St. Piran's flag has not been adopted by the duchy you cannot force it upon it due to your own reading of the law. In order to include the St. Piran's flag or statment that Cornwall is owned by the duchy have to be backed up by reliable sources. A recommendation of a royal commission suggested on the basis that it would appease the locals does not count as such. Eckerslike (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also no need for a map of the county of Cornwall as the duchy is not congruent to it. Eckerslike (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've just given you both an edit-warring warning. Stop reverting each other, and try waiting for other editors to comment here. Perhaps invirte input from members of relevant Wikiprojects. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Duchy of Cornwall was grant via the Cornwall Great Charter of 1337 the Honor of Cornwall, which means feudal lordship of Cornwall, and the shevialty of Cornwall (referring to the Sheriff), which the Duke himself can hold himself. The Sheriffs are directly connect to their county/shire. That Charter is also considered an act of Parliament. Another you have not disproved the source Magna Britannia: volume 3: Cornwall that indicated that the Duke and Duchy had governance of the County. The Kilbrandon Report was brought in to support the three unnamed Acts of Parliament stating that it was an overlordship, but like the Crown moved out of direct rule. So were did Parliament reject this being a fact? Also, you never counter that fact that all holding granted to the Duke outside of the County are called the forinseca maneria (foreign manors), which were considered not to be a part of the Duchy but the Prince's land.

Also, I brought up the fact that the flag is the traditional flag of Cornwall and is recognized as ["The emblem of Cornwall" in any manner (Duchy, County, people). Thus St. Piran's Flag has the same status as the St. George flag of England as they are considered traditional flags and have had no official approval to be recognized. Based on having the same "approval status, you thus intend to go stomping round the English articles declaring the St. George's Cross Flag not to be the Flag of England.

There has been no creation act for office of the Prime Minister while being mention in a few acts of Parliament. According to your standard, Eckerslike and Lobsterthermidor, since you want "legal" approval/creation. Go ahead and stomp around claiming like a loon that the Prime Minister doesn't exist or bizarrely claim one created by charter (Duchy of Cornwall) doesn't exist while one with a creation act or charter (Prime Minister) does exist. Spshu (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You are applying your own interpretation to 700 year old charters as they apply today. Something specificity prohibited by Wikipedia policy without support from a secondary source. The same applies to the Kilbrandon Report. Contemporary sources universally refer to the Duchy of Cornwall as a private estate.[8][9][10] The Magna Britannia source simply lists powers passed to the duchy by the charters. The only power which could be interpreted as passing the county into the possession of the duchy is the governance. That power has not existed at least from the enactment of the 1888 Local Government Act.

The omission of the flag of Cornwall has nothing to do with its legality. Again you have failed to provide sources that establish that the flag is used as an emblem of the duchy. The flag institute links you provided makes no reference to it being a flag of the duchy. Eckerslike (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not applying my own interpretation then current terminology was provide for you to understand it is correct. The Duke still selects the Sheriff of the County of Cornwall, still has the power of consent on Cornwall bills, government style mineral rights, St. Mary's Harbor Authority, foreshore & rivers and bona vacantia. Bona Vacantia must act on some territorial basis. The Duchy states that: "However, this does not apply in the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall. Here, bona vacantia is dealt with by the respective Duchies." So the Duchy is still tied to the county.

You are spinning your own interpretation of the source. Prince Charles's duchy taxes questioned by MPs "The vast majority of the Prince’s £20 million annual income is generated by the duchy, which owns agricultural, commercial and residential property, predominantly in the South West. But the estate does not pay corporation tax on profits from its rents and commercial activity." This just restates that the duchy owns the ducal estate which generate the income for the duchy and thus the duke.

Duchy of Cornwall's tax exemptions 'may give unfair advantage over rivals': "... the duchy – which manages a portfolio of land, property and investments – is running a 'well entrenched tax avoidance scheme'." Indicates that duchy manages (or contains) but is not the Ducal Estate, ie. portfolio of land, etc.

Cornwall MP presses Charles on Duchy tax: "The Duchy of Cornwall is an estate of about 131,000 acres, mostly in the South West, which is run by and provides an income for Prince Charles." However with a side bar statement: "Defining the status of the Duchy of Cornwall is a tricky business." It also state it still hold sovereign powers: "However, the 'title and honour' confers legal prerogatives in Cornwall which elsewhere belong to the Crown: for instance the right to the property of people who die without heirs and ownership of the foreshore." (Note not in the estates but "in Cornwall".)

[Battle over Duchy of Cornwall consultation on laws - article on the UK Government keeping secret laws on when and how the Duke consents on bills.

Duchy of Cornwall Financial Statements Year Ended 31st March 2014: "The principal activity of the Duchy is the sustainable, commercial management of its land and properties." Principal means major activity but not its only.

"Magna Britannia" is the secondary source to the Charter's primary source according to WP:Policy which to you point to then you attempt to dismiss that it is a secondary source.

"The omission of the flag of Cornwall has nothing to do with its legality." Yes, you implied as much with "The St. Piran's flag has not been adopted by the duchy you cannot force it upon it due to your own reading of the law."

"Again you have failed to provide sources that establish that the flag is used as an emblem of the duchy. The flag institute links you provided makes no reference to it being a flag of the duchy." No, once again you ignore what you don't like. ["The emblem of Cornwall" was at one Flag Institute link. The indication that it is the traditional flag of Cornwall was why it has been registered as the County flag at the Flag Registry and doesn't restrict it to that use. Spshu (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Non of what you have said backs up your assertion that "the duchy consists of the county of Cornwall". You have listed as set of powers it has non of which I deny existing (except for mining rights which are owned by the crown and the proceeds shared with the duchy[11]) but it does not establish that the county makes up part of the duchy.

You seemed to have misunderstood the reasons for including the references referring to the duchy as a private estate. It was not my intention to show that it is not something other than a private estate but to show that it is generally considered as a private estate. Thus justifying that statement that it is a private estate. I supplied them to contrast the abundance of such reference to the complete lack of contemporary references supplied by you to support your assertion that the duchy is something other than a private estate.

While the Magna Britannia is a secondary source it is not one that supports your interpretation. The Flag Institute does not support your assertion that the flag is connected with the duchy. So far you have only established the flag's usage in connection with the county of Cornwall. The fact it is the emblem of Cornwall does not give licence to use the flag in any article with Cornwall in the title. If it is considered a duchy emblem then you should be able to supply a reference establishing that fact. Eckerslike (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Armorial bearings of the Duchy of Cornwall

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)

Devon.

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)

Copyediting

I'd be grateful if anyone else (I know hardly anyone looks at this page, but ..) could have a look at the Post-Interregnum section and see if they can improve the English, eg:

• "In 1988, the West Dorset District Council allocated land west of Dorchester for a planned development on the Ducal manor of Fordington, which Charles joined to carry out the development, Poundbury"
• "In 1992 as an outlet for the ducal estate farm products, Charles started Duchy Originals to use produce from ducal farms"

I've tried but am repeatedly reverted en masse. Also if anyone else could comment on whether it is usual or appropriate to refer to Charles, the duke, as "Duke Charles", as one editor is insisting it is, that would help. Really, this kind of thing shouldn't be that difficult, but there you go. N-HH talk/edits 18:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"In 1988, West Dorset District Council allocated land in the ducal estate at Fordington, west of Dorchester, for housing development, which became known as Poundbury."

"The Duchy Originals company was set up in 1992, to sell produce from farms on the ducal estate."

The term "Duke Charles" is never, ever, used.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. Although looking into this further again, not only were the additions I was trying to copyedit badly written, but one of them appears to have introduced an error: modern Fordington is to the east of Dorchester (ie the other side to Poundbury). It may be that the term referred to a broader area previously, and/or that the Poundbury site was technically part of the manor of Fordington, but that is not certain. The source cited for Fordington says nothing about the Poundbury development (I did try to remove that bit and the source in one of my later copyedits; to no avail, as noted). N-HH talk/edits 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to omit any mention of Fordington then, in my view. The Poundbury sites I've looked at don't seem to mention it prominently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again (I would have done it myself rather than just flagging it on talk, but this page has become pretty impossible for me right now, and as noted, I had already tried to finesse that bit. And it wasn't even about any of the duchy controversies). N-HH talk/edits 11:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Duke is correct and usable, N-HH ignored the url given in the edit summary and source used in the Duke of Cornwall article. (You should have check the edit summaries, Ghmyrtle.) PoW Titles which states: "In addition to the title The Prince of Wales, His Royal Highness holds a number of other titles. Some are used depending on where he is in the country such as The Duke of Rothesay when he is in Scotland, and The Duke of Cornwall when he is visiting the South West of England." So Duke is used in regards to the Duchy and then some including Scotland as the Duke of Rothesay (interesting using that title over Prince and Great Steward of Scotland). In standard writing one would refer to a full name then only refer to them by last name in academic or journalistic article. So just using Charles is general incorrect. I suppose Charles Windsor would do.

Notes on the Manor of Fordington:

Old Dorchester, constituting the borough before the enlargement of its bounds in 1836, consists of three parishes, Holy Trinity cum Frome Whitfield, St. Peter's, and All Saints. Then the curious point is that the Manor of Fordington encircles the whole of these three parishes except an isthmus of about 100yds. wide, uniting the two parts of Holy Trinity parish.

What other manor might it be then? Secondly, N-HH, you never indicated in your edit summary that was a problem for you. Spshu (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No-one has ever said that the terms "Duke", or "Duke of Cornwall", are wrong. The term "Charles" is not wrong (though you may personally dislike it), but may be inappropriate in some circumstances. The term "Charles Windsor" may be correct, but it would be non-neutral to use it in this article. But the term "Duke Charles", which is the form you used, is simply wrong, incorrect, and unacceptable - in much the same way as you can say "Sir Winston Churchill", "Churchill", or "Sir Winston" - but never "Sir Churchill". Why? I don't know. It just is. The point about the Fordington manor may or not be true, I neither know nor care. It's just trivial and irrelevant here Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In your example, Duke Charles is the equivalent of Sir Winston while Duke Windsor is the same as Sir Churchill. I do not personal dislike as I point out that in an academic or journalistic article should not be done. As far as Fordington, a thought it would explain his ownership of the land and a point to tie back into history. As in a reader seeing that the duchy owned Fordington Manor, well what happen to it. Well, Poundbury happened (atleast what we can give for now). Basic tying the present to the past. Interesting enough, Poundbury was a region's of the Fordington “Great Field” (see page 3 of PDF source). Spshu (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Duke Charles" is not "the equivalent of Sir Winston" - see Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Nobility. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Duchy of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Duchy of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Duchy website as source

User:Spshu (who has long casued interminable and pointless debates and edit-wars on this page) has now taken to repeatedly removing info sourced to the duchy's own website, which is being used to explain some basic but fundamental points about the duchy and its history. Here is the content I put back after they removed a longstanding version (I changed it slightly to avoid legimtiate copyvio concerns, and to update the link). They are now edit-warring it out, claiming "political motives" for the duchy saying what it does and citing WP:PRIMARY. The first reason borders on a conpsiracy theory and, as I suggested to them, they need to find a source contradicting what the duchy itself says about basic facts that are not controversial at all (eg about where it holds its land). As for PRIMARY, that does not bar the use of primary sources, only interpretation of them, which is not happening here. The idea that you can't use an organisation's website for basic facts about that organisation is absurd. The problem is, on past experience, that we now have an endless edit war and endless, digressive non-sequiturs on the talk page. Any third opinions welcome .. N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

N-HH: "Reliably sourced info which is pretty fundamental to explaining what the duchy is. If the info is wrong, find a source that says so and put on talk rather than blanking content with suggestion that this body lies about itself for a political motive"

A primary source is not consider a reliable source as a self published source per WP:SELFSOURCE. Nor does the source completely support the new information. No where except through N-HH's interpretation does it support "The duchy does not share the same boundaries as the county". What it does support is already cover in the lead of the article as this is not "History" information and should be removed forth with. Also, the additional information he has since added is also already in the "Legal status and additional rights" section.

So, no I do not need to give some contrarian source for my removal. The Duke himself, despite being correct in calling Cornwall a country, had to make a retraction of said statement probably as to not confuse people that Cornwall is a recognized Countries of the United Kingdom. There is a whole political issue in that there is a whole WP article regarding the matter, Constitutional status of Cornwall.

Nor can you claim that from the start that the Duchy is only the estates from the beginning.

The 1969-73 Royal Commission on the Constitution Report or the Kilbrandon Report indicates that the County is the Duchy: "The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the 14th century may have been in some respects a mark of English overlordship, but it established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown." (emphasis mine)

Magna Britannia: volume 3: Cornwall: "It seems most probable, that the Dukes and Earls of Cornwall continued to possess that shadow of sovereignty which they were allowed to retain immediately after the conquest of the county by Athelstan. Carew speaks of it as an entire state by the name of a kingdom, principality, duchy or earldom." "Large revenues were annexed to the duchy (fn. 8), and the immediate government of the county vested in the Duke, who has his Chancellor, Attorney, and Solicitor-general, and other officers, his court of Exchequer, with the appointment of sheriffs, &c. &c." (emphasis mine)

This shows the Duchy was just not about the land estate in the beginning. Yes, Royal Commission do not dictate the law like Eckerslike pointed out, but in this case it is pointing out the history of the Duke in actually ruling. Spshu (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, there is nothing automatically wrong with using an entity's own website for basic facts. There isn't, and nothing in SELFPUB/SELFSOURCE or PRIMARY says there is – indeed they both say such sources may be used, subject to some restrictions. Nothing you cite above directly says that the claims on the website, and now back in the history section, are false or misleading, such that there is a need to review that prima facie assumption in this case. Your personal interpretation of the Kilbrandon commmission and claims that the duke said Cornwall was a country (and was "correct" to do so) etc count for nothing I am afraid: you need to find serious, secondary sources that explicitly refute or challenge the information on the duchy website. As for the boundaries point, the website says: "The Duchy estate has never owned the entire county of Cornwall". So it is there; I just didn't directly carry the same wording across. And yes, this point is in the lead too – because the lead summarises the body. That doesn't make it repetition. The lead, the history section and the legal section also acknowledge, based in part on the duchy website, that the duke had and has certain rights across the county (which almost certainly, yes, had more import in pre-Tudor and pre-modern England). The content you're deleting also explicitly references the difference between the estate and the title. No one is disputing that.

All these underlying points about the difference between the duchy and the county have been gone over ad nauseam with you. You may be confused by some of what you read here, but the solution to that is to address your own confusion, not remove factual information you disagree with from the page and argue endlessly with everyone about it again and again on the talk page. What a time sink. Why does this have to be such a struggle?. N-HH talk/edits 16:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have point out that you have hit the restriction, restating that they can be used with restriction is digressive non-sequiturs (And you claim I am the one doing so). I am afraid you need see The Kilbrandon Commission was supported by the Magna Britannia, which you selective ignored, so I do have a "serious, secondary sources that explicitly refute" as it express indicates that the Duke was involved in ruling Cornwall.

No, I understand the difference between the duchy and county and you have not gone over ad nauseam with me. You have just repeatedly stonewall discussion by declaring that you are right and being dismissive of my sources. The solution for you to stop gloss over my points.

Re:boundaries is a governmental reference (not usually use for personal property). Duchy estate refers to the personal property that is held by the Duchy. The UK government doesn't own all the property in the UK. So, you cannot draw the boundary of the UK to Whitehall, Westminister, military bases, etc.

Please address your own confusion since you are being repetitive addressing what other sections cover in the history section for no other reason then to start an war talk page or other wise. Why does this have to be a struggle, because all you do is stonewall instead of discuss. Spshu (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, now, N-HH, you have triplicated information in the article on property, twice in the history section then in the property section. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason why information cannot be replayed in different contexts or sections, so long as it's not outright repetition. And what duplication is there exactly within the history section (as opposed to possibly an initial statement, followed by more detailed explanation of that statement)? More pertinently, I added no additional detail about the estate and manors to any section in this series of edits anyway. I simply moved stuff that was already there around and did some copyediting; the only substantive information I added was about the founding charter granting rights to revenue from the courts and port, which until then was not mentioned anywhere on the page. In fact, of course, I was actually working with material that you included a while ago in the history section. And by the way, in case you've forgotten, it was also you who introduced those references to the manors to the property section. N-HH talk/edits 20:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know who add the original history information about the estates. No you did not add information about rights to revenue from the courts as it was added with the "The Caption of Seisin of the Duchy of Cornwall" information I added.

You were the one that had some what of of a problem with excess details in the history section, of course those Surfury details (and wasn't much just about 2 phases, not a blow by blow) don't have much of any where else to go, about Surfbury: " Copyedit 'Surfbury' addition. Not sure we need a blow-by-blow detail of every planned DoC development, but whatever". I move some to the Property section under a new subsection. Basically you are putting summary information that belongs in the introduction or specialized section

Also, your demand that I give you a source to negate your interpretation of the Duchy of Cornwall website is false under WP:PROVEIT as self sourcing is necessarily not WP:NOTRELIABLE. Spshu (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if you know who added that content, in both places, why on earth are you accusing me of being responsible for any duplication re properties? On a trivial point of correction re courts and revenues, the existing survey info merely said the duke had looked into what revenue he got from the stannary courts. My edit explained that it was the charter that granted the right to that revenue – as well as to revenue from the county courts and the ports. None of this, as I said, was mentioned previously (nor is it "summary information" being put in the wrong place: it's about the creation of the duchy, which is part of its, er, history). Indeed you're the one saying the page downplays the "government" role of the duchy in relation to the county. I was actually trying to help with that. And again, that was the only information I added. And yes, I do see a problem with listing every single development or land sale, however minor, carried out by the duchy (albeit I didn't just dive in, Spshu-style, and delete it all, but actually copyedited the garbled English you had added about it). But of course, worse, we're not even doing that: we're listing only the recent ones which have been mentioned in online newspapers. And now mentioning them in two sections. Could you stop accusing others of duplication when it's you that's doing it, not anyone else? Finally, PROVEIT is about uncited material or material cited to "unreliable" sources. As I keep pointing out to you, primary or self-published sources are not automatically unreliable when it comes to basic information about the thing itself. You have to show there is a problem in this specific case. Right I think that answers all your points. If I wasn't diverted by this nonsense, I might actually be able to spend time improving what remains a pretty ropey page in many places, but there you go. N-HH talk/edits 08:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Capital for 'duchy'?

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)

History: what happened between 1660 and 1975?

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)

Why isn't Highgrove House listed under Property?

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)