成人论坛

In fact his whole article on Duchy or County is very good and well researched.

Graham,

Your clutching at straws if the only support you can find is a rabidly anti-Cornish blog that allows no right of reply on its articles.

Again I draw your attention to the findings of John Kirkhope:

More awesome than either:

More 'awesome' for you, Mr Smith - John Kirkhope, Notary Public:

'Cornwall has a unique legal history. Stannary law, a legal system exclusive to Cornwall, is still formally part of the law of Britain and one of the oldest; it predates the Norman Conquest and possibly even the Anglo Saxons.
As a practicing lawyer and someone with a passionate interest in history I decided to combine my enthusiasms and set about writing a book provisionally titles Cornish Law something that had not been done before. It is interesting to not one could not imagine writing a book entitled say Berkshire Law or Somerset Law.
I have spent some time considering the Duchy of Cornwall, its establishment and development. As part of that process, I have read the papers relating the Cornwall Foreshore Case ( a legal arbitration between The Duchy of Cornwall and The Crown over the ownership of the Cornish foreshore) and have been struck by the claims once made for the Duchy and the claims made for the Duchy now.
In the summary to the Duchy submissions in 1885 it was claimed on behalf of the Duchy: 鈥淭hat 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 of the territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.鈥�
Even further back in 1584 John Norden in his Description of Cornwall stated: 鈥淗is Highness, by this honour, is privileged with sundry jurisdictions and royalties. The benefit arising by minerals as of gold silver tin and such like鈥aving within his government a perculiar parliament. Moreover appointeth all officers as the sheriff, an officer of greatest command, being vice governor of the shyre.鈥�
In contrast, Duchy of Cornwall now claims it is a 鈥榳ell managed private estate鈥�. One cannot judge if it is well managed, but what I can say is that if it is a private estate it is a private estate with a unique array of rights and privileges not available to other similar private estates.
The Duchy once had an impressive array of regalian, or Royal rights; for example the right of 鈥榩risage of wine鈥�, the right of 鈥榞reat customs of wools, wool-fels and leather鈥� and the right to 鈥榮eize and confiscate enemies ships in times of war鈥�. A surprising number of these ancient rights have survived and are still exercised by the Duchy. Despite their strange-sounding names they provide the Duchy and the Duke with considerable benefits.
The following is not an exhaustive list but amongst the rights which remain are:
Right to Bono vacantia:
It is generally known that if you die in Cornwall with no heirs then your estate will pass to the Duchy of Cornwall. Few people realise how extensive this right is. Firstly it applies of you are 鈥榙omiciled鈥� in Cornwall. Domicile is a very tricky legal concept. You could in theory have lived in Yorkshire of 50 years and still be domiciled in Cornwall. Generally no one is domiciled in the United Kingdom; you are either domiciled in Scotland, Northern Ireland or England and Wales. For this particular purpose you can also be domiciled in Cornwall.
This particular right includes the assets of dissolved companies and freehold land in Cornwall which becomes ownerless.
The right of 鈥榖ono vacantia鈥� is not very common but it does arise more often then people might imagine, For the year ended 2007, some 拢130,000 was realised from this right.
Bertie Ross, secretary and keeper of the Records of the Duchy of Cornwall, appeared before the public accounts committee of the House of Commons in 2005 on behalf of the Duchy.
In answer to a question regarding bono vacantia he stated: 鈥淭his is one of the traditional things we have inherited.鈥�
When asked what the money was used for, he added: 鈥淚t is a charity. It is used for education religion etc. We try to focus it back into the area from which it has come.鈥�
In fact the Duchy website states the money is used in the South West. Since the funds by definition come from Cornwall, you would expect it all to be spent in Cornwall; however only a small percentage is.
Right to appoint sheriff:
In a departure from English tradition, in Cornwall it is the Duke of Cornwall rather than the Crown who appoints the sheriff. The position is now largely ceremonial; in times past the sheriff was a very important person with control of the Duchy government and courts.
Rights to fundus and foreshore:
The Duchy has a right to about three fifths of the foreshore of Cornwall as a consequence of the Cornwall Foreshore Case and the resulting Cornwall Submarine Act 1858. Needless to say, in the rest of the country the foreshore is owned by the Crown. The Duchy also owns the 鈥榝undus鈥� or navigable riverbed of the Tamar, most other Cornish rivers, and some rivers in Devon. This means the pillars of the Tamar Bridges are located on Duchy property, so presumably a certain amount of the fees paid for crossing the bridges is paid to the Duchy.
Right to wrecks:
The Duchy has the right to unclaimed wrecks within its jurisdiction either floating within a specified distance from the shore or washed shore. The right extends to Royal fish (Royal fish are whales dolphins and sturgeon which are washed up).
Rights applicable to Duchy solicitors and Barristers:
This right is rather odd and means that, unlike any other barrister or solicitor within England as Wales, the Attorney General to the Duchy being a barrister or solicitor need not be called to the English and Welsh Bar if a barrister or hold a practising certificate if a solicitor.
Right to summon a parliament:
Some introductory comments here would be useful. The Convocation or Parliament of Tinners has, by the Charter of Pardon of 1508, the power of veto of Westminster legislation 鈥� a power it did exercise.
A professor of law, the late Robert Pennington, stated: 鈥淣o other institution has ever had such wide powers in the history of the country.鈥�
The Cornish Tinners Parliament last met in 1753, 45 years after the old Scottish Parliament was abolished and only 48 years before the Irish Parliament was abolished. As Professor Pennington says: 鈥�..it (the Cornish parliament) still exists as a legal institution and its powers of veto remain unimpared.鈥�
Unlike the Scottish and Irish Parliaments it has never been abolished, a fact recently confirmed in a letter from the Ministry of Justice. The Duke of Cornwall has at least the theoretical right to summon the Tinners Parliament and to give Royal Assent to Acts passed by it. An order could even be sought from the court obliging the Duke to summon the Parliament, a view shared by on QC whom I recently consulted.
The right not to pay tax:
Firstly it should be noted tha the Duke of Cornwall is entitled to the income of the Duchy but not the capital. Next, in the report issued by the House of Commons in 2005 it was stated: 鈥淚n accordance with normal practice the Duchy is not subject to tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes. However, His Royal Highness is subject to income tax on the Duchy鈥檚 net income.鈥�
The statement is surprising and difficult to understand. Effectively, the Duchy is exempt from capital gains tax and presumably inheritance tax. Asset sales, on which captital gains tax may potentially have been due, have totalled 拢123 million since 2001. Presumably this considerable benefit makes the task of running a 鈥榳ell managed鈥� private estate much easier.
It is in this regard that the Duchy website is misleading. It states: 鈥淭he Prince of Wales already pays income tax on the Duchy鈥檚 surplus.鈥�
He does not. He pays voluntary an amount equal to the income tax he would have paid if he had been liable.
In reply to a question from the public accounts committee Mr Ross stated: 鈥淭he Prince pays tax on a voluntary basis in exactly the same way as any other taxpayers.鈥�
I don鈥檛 know how many of us pay tax on a voluntary basis.
The Duchy enjoys a highly privileged tax status unique to a 鈥榩rivate estate鈥�. In accordance with 鈥榥ormal practice鈥� it does not pay capital gains tax or inheritance tax and income tax is paid on a voluntary basis. The last figures published show the Duke鈥檚 income from the Duchy was 拢16 Million. His voluntary contribution, equal to the income tax would be 拢3 million. For completeness sake the Duchy does pay VAT.
The right for the Dukedom not to be extinguished for was of an heir
This is a unique characteristic of the Duchy. For about half the period since the Duchy was created there has been no Duke. It is an honour that passes to the eldest living son, being heir to the throne of England.
鈥淭here may be no Duke but there is always a Duchy,鈥� as ALRowse once said.
The right to the Isle of Scilly:
Although some freeholds have now been sold in broad terms the Duchy claims it owns the Isles of Scilly although the means by which it does so is surprisingly ambiguous.
The right to Crown immunity:
It is a long standing legal doctrine that unless Parliament intends otherwise, onerous legislation does not apply to the Crown. The Crown for this purpose is not limited to the monarch personally, but extends to amongst others the Prince of Wales in right of the Duchy of Cornwall. In simple terms and Act of Parliament does not extend to the Duchy unless the Act specifically says so.
The right so intervene in court cases and demand a trial at Bar
Like the monarch, the Duke has the right to intervene in certain court cases and also to ask for a 鈥榯rial at Bar鈥� which means a trial before all the judges of one of the superior courts of Westminster.
AL Rowse wrote: 鈥淭he Duchy of Cornwall is a peculiarly interesting institution with a constitutional status and characteristics all of its own of which few people are aware and with which only a few lawyers are competent to deal.鈥�
It would appear that the Duchy would seek to deny that unique status. It says it is a private estate that in fact owns more land outside Cornwall than within. The Duchy emphasises that 鈥楾he Duchy is not the county and the county is not the Duchy鈥� and yet the Duchy and the Duke have a set of Royal rights more usually only available to the Crown, which apply only to Cornwall.
Does any of this matter?
Well yes I think it does. Firstly for the heir to the throne to permit statements that make clearly misleading claims does him no justice. A private estate does not have the Royal rights enjoyed by the Duchy: consider, for example, its tax status.
These seemingly archaic rights, for example the right to the foreshore, generate significant income for the Duchy and the Duke, which means a disproportionate share of the expenses of the heir to the throne falls on Cornwall.
That, at least, should be acknowledged and discussed.
At a time when Cornwall, economically, needs bolstering and the government of Cornwall in apparent upheaval perhaps the legal status of Cornwall and the monies generated by The Duchy need to be made transparent rather than suffer the murkiness of misinformation.'

'Awesome'. Don't you agree?

'Awesome'. Don't you agree?

Nope, www.cornishworldmagazine.co.uk is not really an impartial magazine, when it comes to the law you need proper legal experts who have no set agenda. Even then these acts are created at such a level they can make it up as they go along, who cares if we have a king or a queen, smacks of clutching at straws to me. The queen represents the law in this country "England" whatever powers were devolved have not been used by the prince outside of providing him a private income, the queen remains governor and long may she lead us and we shall live happily ever after

The act is like many out of date and use

The question was actually addressed to Mr Smith, 'Andrew Jacks'.
That aside...
1.Truth is often expressed by and within the pages of the non-'impartial'.
2.John Kirkhope is just such a legal expert.
3.'This country' is not England.
4.The act is clearly not out of date as the current Duke of The Duchy Of Cornwall derives considerable personal benefits and comforts from being Duke of the Duchy Of Cornwall some of which are outlined above.

Andrew Jacks wrote: Nope, www.cornishworldmagazine.co.uk is not really an impartial magazine, when it comes to the law you need proper legal experts who have no set agenda.
LOL ! ! !.......And the English legal system and media is ? LOL ! ! !
BTW, Cornish World Magazine no longer exists. It's now a suck-up-to-the-English periodical.

"Let me make this quite clear - I am NOT comparing any of Cornwall's nationalists with Osama Bin Laden."

Even though after obvious deliberation you've specifically chosen Bin Laden as the character you'll use in your comparison with Cornish Nationalists?


" I would describe those nationalists I have met as generally gentle, thoughtful people who are genuinely puzzled by any reluctance to share their beliefs."

How do those gentle, thoughtful Cornish people deal with all that puzzlement their beliefs cause then to suffer?
They don't.
They don't because you have decided alone that all historical, cultural, constitutional, political and legal knowledge about Cornwall is part of some Cornish belief system. But you want people to swallow that so you can continue to the point of this blog - that ancient rivalries and religious clashes in the Middle East are comparable to the Cornish dilemma and if we don't all let by-gones be by-gones then the Cornish just might hijack an Air South West or four and fly them into Truro cathedral... ?

"Bin Laden's campaign of international terrorism is based on his belief that the Western world's Crusades (1088-1314) never ended. He is still trying to fight those wars and refuses to consider that the world might have moved on.

After all, it's not as if there was an umpire or referee who blew a whistle at the end and declared one side or the other the "winner." As with so much of history, things just sort of fizzled out when everyone got tired of or bored with all the slaughter. "

Bin Laden is a silly Billy and shouldn't cling on to historical grievences and so the silly Cornish people shouldn't either.
And to all those budding CNLAers out there, remember too much slaughter can lead to boredom - take some toys with you next time you march to London..


"So here's my question (or questions): at what point did we move on from The Black Prince's investiture as the first Duke of Cornwall in 1337 to the modern day Duchy of Cornwall? If the answer is "we haven't" then what would it take to convince you that the Black Prince is no longer relevant (at least, not to most people?)"

At what point did we move on from one date to another?
Think about it. You're presented with a start date and a finish date of a constitutional construction that's been in existence for 1000 years and Graham asks "at what point did we move on?"

What is a territorial possession of the English Crown supposed to move on 'to' Graham? 'Not being one any more'? - because the cash from the tin ran out a while back and there's far more to be made from property development these days?

Should the Channel Islands also sort their 'moving on' issues out too?

Wales?

And if you haven't moved on?

Then you're in need of some Black Prince rehabilitation thereapy until you're fully convinced that it was just a silly belief.
You were just a psychotic English person after all.


"And to those who seek to turn the clock back - why stop at 1337? Why not campaign for an earlier start? Are we not all African?"

The clock in the Duchy of Cornwall office ticks bang up to date.
The vast collection of acts and statutes that protect this 'private estate' from the usual strains and stresses of the private sector probably sit neatly on the shelf below.

Your understanding of the Cornish dilemma seems about par with the average man in the street.. In Africa.

"The Kilbrandon Report was just a fine piece of EIS smoke and mirrors - designed to create an argument about whether there is a Duchy outside of England or not."

(Stephen Richardson, Mebyon Kernow).

Andrew Jacks wrote, "when it comes to the law you need proper legal experts who have no set agenda."

AccurateChronometer wrote "John Kirkhope is just such a legal expert."?

John Kirkhope has "no set agenda"?

Really?

"Your clutching at straws if the only support you can find is a rabidly anti-Cornish blog that allows no right of reply on its articles."

Oh dear, TheCornishDem.

Someone has their own views?

Without input from anyone else?

Isn't that freedom of speech?

From his own website

John Kirkhope Notary Public Solicitor in Weston-super-Mare, specialising in Wills, Probate, Contentious Probate

Not an expert in Constitutional law

Parliamentary sovereignty

Julian Harman and John Dove v Cornwall County

It advances the theory that there exists a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament, whereby those Acts affecting "the legal relationship between citizen and State" or "fundamental constitutional rights" form a special and superior category known as "constitutional statutes" and can only be expressly repealed or abrogated by Parliament and therefore immune from the doctrine of implied repeal. Included within this category is the European Communities Act 1972.