If we knew the opinion of the good citizens of Berwick on their nationality we could close this eccentric discussion at once.
For the love of Kernow
What has that got to do with it? Its in England, so even if the people of Berwick consider themselves to be Malsaysian, it's still in England.
"it is legitimately a Scottish town"
How? How could that be? It's in Northumberland, isn't it? So it's an English town. It was founded by the Anglo-saxons in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and only became Scottish for a while after the Scots stole it, so how is it "legitimately" Scottish? Can you explain that for me? If an English army invaded and stole Edinburgh, would that make Edinburgh legitimately English? According to you it would.
And the people of berwic do NOT speak with a Scottish accent. They speak with an English accent that is perfectly normal for the far north of England. Go to the city of Carlisle in Cumbria, which must only be about an hour's drive from the Scottish border, and listen to the people's accents. They sound like Scots - but they are English.
How? How could that be? It's in Northumberland, isn't it? So it's an English town. It was founded by the Anglo-saxons in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and only became Scottish for a while after the Scots stole it, so how is it "legitimately" Scottish? Can you explain that for me? If an English army invaded and stole Edinburgh, would that make Edinburgh legitimately English? According to you it would.
And the people of berwic do NOT speak with a Scottish accent. They speak with an English accent that is perfectly normal for the far north of England. Go to the city of Carlisle in Cumbria, which must only be about an hour's drive from the Scottish border, and listen to the people's accents. They sound like Scots - but they are English.
God, the Scots whinge about "English imperialism", but Berwick is a prime example of Scottish imperialism. I cannot see how Berwick could possibly be Scottish when it was founded by Anglo-saxons in Northumbria.
You're quick to say that Cornwall isn't English because it's Celtic, but then say the opposite thing when it comes to Berwick - Berwick is an Anglo-Saxon town with an Anglo-Saxon name, but is part of CELTIC Scotland!
Hmmmm. So the English have no right to claim Cornwall because Cornwall is English, but the Scots are allowed to claim Berwick even though Berwick was founded by the Anglo-Saxons? That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it?
You're quick to say that Cornwall isn't English because it's Celtic, but then say the opposite thing when it comes to Berwick - Berwick is an Anglo-Saxon town with an Anglo-Saxon name, but is part of CELTIC Scotland!
Hmmmm. So the English have no right to claim Cornwall because Cornwall is English, but the Scots are allowed to claim Berwick even though Berwick was founded by the Anglo-Saxons? That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it?
"So the English have no right to claim Cornwall because Cornwall is English"
That should have been "because Cornwall is Celtic."
Cornwall = English.
Berwick = English.
End of story. Otherwise, us English will invade Gretna Green and make it a part of England. After all, that's what the Scots did with berwick.
That should have been "because Cornwall is Celtic."
Cornwall = English.
Berwick = English.
End of story. Otherwise, us English will invade Gretna Green and make it a part of England. After all, that's what the Scots did with berwick.
""it is legitimately a Scottish town"
How? How could that be? It's in Northumberland, isn't it? So it's an English town. It was founded by the Anglo-saxons in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and only became Scottish for a while after the Scots stole it, so how is it "legitimately" Scottish? Can you explain that for me? If an English army invaded and stole Edinburgh, would that make Edinburgh legitimately English? According to you it would.
And the people of berwic do NOT speak with a Scottish accent. They speak with an English accent that is perfectly normal for the far north of England. Go to the city of Carlisle in Cumbria, which must only be about an hour's drive from the Scottish border, and listen to the people's accents. They sound like Scots - but they are English. "
I suppose that by that principle, England could claim that the Scottish lowlands should belong to England as the Kingdom of Northumbria stretched as far North as the Firth of Forth. The lowland Scots language itself is descended from the Northumbrian dialect of Old English. There are bound to be settlements in the far North of England where the local accents sound similar to Scottish. Because the Northern English dialects aswell as Scots are descended from the Northumbrian dialect. There are even striking similarites between Scots are the geordie dialect although boths accents are distinctive.
How? How could that be? It's in Northumberland, isn't it? So it's an English town. It was founded by the Anglo-saxons in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and only became Scottish for a while after the Scots stole it, so how is it "legitimately" Scottish? Can you explain that for me? If an English army invaded and stole Edinburgh, would that make Edinburgh legitimately English? According to you it would.
And the people of berwic do NOT speak with a Scottish accent. They speak with an English accent that is perfectly normal for the far north of England. Go to the city of Carlisle in Cumbria, which must only be about an hour's drive from the Scottish border, and listen to the people's accents. They sound like Scots - but they are English. "
I suppose that by that principle, England could claim that the Scottish lowlands should belong to England as the Kingdom of Northumbria stretched as far North as the Firth of Forth. The lowland Scots language itself is descended from the Northumbrian dialect of Old English. There are bound to be settlements in the far North of England where the local accents sound similar to Scottish. Because the Northern English dialects aswell as Scots are descended from the Northumbrian dialect. There are even striking similarites between Scots are the geordie dialect although boths accents are distinctive.
"Its in England, so even if the people of Berwick consider themselves to be Malsaysian, it's still in England."
Its in Ireland if the people of Belfast consider themselves to be Malaysian, it's still Ireland. You must agree with that Adam. Just a slight alteration of your own words.
Its in Ireland if the people of Belfast consider themselves to be Malaysian, it's still Ireland. You must agree with that Adam. Just a slight alteration of your own words.
"Its in Ireland if the people of Belfast consider themselves to be Malaysian, it's still Ireland."
Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, though, not the rest of Ireland.
Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, though, not the rest of Ireland.
"I suppose that by that principle, England could claim that the Scottish lowlands should belong to England as the Kingdom of Northumbria stretched as far North as the Firth of Forth. "
We could also have Glasgow and the whole of South West Scotland as the Kingdom of Strathclyde stretched all the way down to present day Lancashire.
We could also have Glasgow and the whole of South West Scotland as the Kingdom of Strathclyde stretched all the way down to present day Lancashire.
<<<Many people reject all claims that Cornwall is, or ought to be, distinct from England. While recognising that there are local peculiarisms, they point out that Yorkshire, Kent, and Cheshire (for example) also have local customs and identities that do not seem to undermine their essential Englishness. >>>
Adam, there is little point in discussing the legitimacy of Cornish Rights, and a very real policy of cultural genocide of the Cornish people, through these message boards. It is solely a matter for an independent judicial process. This should preferrably be at Strasbourg.
The Cornish Foreshore Case ('CFC'), and its ensuing Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858 was derived by arbitration within which the constraints were set out by the Crown. Whilst not part of the arbitration, is there an equivalent Act for Devonshire? Extracts of 'CFC' documentation show:
Extract of letter from Crown to Sir John Patteson 18th Feb 1856 :-
“…..From such examinations of the matter as we have had an opportunity to make, we think that there can be little controversy as to matters of fact and that the rights must depend upon principles of law applied to the construction of Statutes – Resolutions of Parliament and Courts of Law, - Charters and other written Documents – with [respect (? word unclear)] – to the existence and contents of which no dispute can arise…..”
Extract of Sir John Patteson’s award 10th June 1857 :-
“…I have carefully considered all the Statutes, Charters, Documents and cases which have been produced or referred to by the Counsel for the Crown and for the Duchy ; and also all the Arguments which they have adduced.
FIRST – I am of the opinion and so decide that as between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall the right to the Minerals between High and Low-Water Mark has passed to and is vested in the Duke of Cornwall as part of the Soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy…”
There is an over-riding factor to all of the confusion being generated by certain individuals over what documents might be construed as saying that, makes these discussions an irrelevance. This is simply, the fact that the Cornish people have, historically, always been aware that England starts east of the River Tamar - a truth not lost on many impartial observers and historians. The devil is always in the detail but an overview reveals all!
If the Dirty Tricks dept, alias Celtic Devon, wish to promote a surprisingly new identity for the people of Devonshire, then they are free to do this, but do not pretend to do this by attempting to deconstruct centuries of naturally established Cornish history.
It is one thing to suggest that there is something wrong with the information contained within, what has been described as a Cornish Nationalist website(s), but it is something quite different to prove that to be so.
There are many issues over Cornish Rights that need to be challenged in the courts and I suspect that the English Imperial State will not wish to go there. For similar reasons that the 'CFC' was put to arbitration and kept out of the courts. The relevance to Cornish Rights of the 'CFC' - contrived, in my opinion, to give the most lucrative award to the Crown - was not, who won which award, but in the arguments and evidence (not in the public domain) put forward by the Officers of the Duchy. All of which may be found on the TGG website.
http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/
http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/maps-states2.asp?id_pays=45
http://www.cornish-stannary-parliament.abelgratis.com/
Adam, there is little point in discussing the legitimacy of Cornish Rights, and a very real policy of cultural genocide of the Cornish people, through these message boards. It is solely a matter for an independent judicial process. This should preferrably be at Strasbourg.
The Cornish Foreshore Case ('CFC'), and its ensuing Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858 was derived by arbitration within which the constraints were set out by the Crown. Whilst not part of the arbitration, is there an equivalent Act for Devonshire? Extracts of 'CFC' documentation show:
Extract of letter from Crown to Sir John Patteson 18th Feb 1856 :-
“…..From such examinations of the matter as we have had an opportunity to make, we think that there can be little controversy as to matters of fact and that the rights must depend upon principles of law applied to the construction of Statutes – Resolutions of Parliament and Courts of Law, - Charters and other written Documents – with [respect (? word unclear)] – to the existence and contents of which no dispute can arise…..”
Extract of Sir John Patteson’s award 10th June 1857 :-
“…I have carefully considered all the Statutes, Charters, Documents and cases which have been produced or referred to by the Counsel for the Crown and for the Duchy ; and also all the Arguments which they have adduced.
FIRST – I am of the opinion and so decide that as between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall the right to the Minerals between High and Low-Water Mark has passed to and is vested in the Duke of Cornwall as part of the Soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy…”
There is an over-riding factor to all of the confusion being generated by certain individuals over what documents might be construed as saying that, makes these discussions an irrelevance. This is simply, the fact that the Cornish people have, historically, always been aware that England starts east of the River Tamar - a truth not lost on many impartial observers and historians. The devil is always in the detail but an overview reveals all!
If the Dirty Tricks dept, alias Celtic Devon, wish to promote a surprisingly new identity for the people of Devonshire, then they are free to do this, but do not pretend to do this by attempting to deconstruct centuries of naturally established Cornish history.
It is one thing to suggest that there is something wrong with the information contained within, what has been described as a Cornish Nationalist website(s), but it is something quite different to prove that to be so.
There are many issues over Cornish Rights that need to be challenged in the courts and I suspect that the English Imperial State will not wish to go there. For similar reasons that the 'CFC' was put to arbitration and kept out of the courts. The relevance to Cornish Rights of the 'CFC' - contrived, in my opinion, to give the most lucrative award to the Crown - was not, who won which award, but in the arguments and evidence (not in the public domain) put forward by the Officers of the Duchy. All of which may be found on the TGG website.
http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/
http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/maps-states2.asp?id_pays=45
http://www.cornish-stannary-parliament.abelgratis.com/
Adam says in quote above::
****Go to the city of Carlisle in Cumbria, which must only be about an hour's drive from the Scottish border***
Adam: You live in Lancashire, a good way south of the Scottish border, and you need to check your map references with regard to the position of the city of Carlisle. Like Berwick, that too was part of Scotland at one time in history. And Carlisle city centre is only EIGHT (8) miles south of the Scottish/English border at Gretna Green, so if you say it takes an hour to travel that distance (usual way is on the M6 motorway just to the east of the city) all I can say is that you must have ridden on the back of a snail.....in my car it would take me about six minutes once on the motorway to get from Carlisle to the border and back into Scotland. Check your map, pal.
****Go to the city of Carlisle in Cumbria, which must only be about an hour's drive from the Scottish border***
Adam: You live in Lancashire, a good way south of the Scottish border, and you need to check your map references with regard to the position of the city of Carlisle. Like Berwick, that too was part of Scotland at one time in history. And Carlisle city centre is only EIGHT (8) miles south of the Scottish/English border at Gretna Green, so if you say it takes an hour to travel that distance (usual way is on the M6 motorway just to the east of the city) all I can say is that you must have ridden on the back of a snail.....in my car it would take me about six minutes once on the motorway to get from Carlisle to the border and back into Scotland. Check your map, pal.
Ahh, I see. So now you imperialist Scots want CARLISLE now, do you? When will this end? How much land do you want? Scotland is under-populated, it is very sparesly populated, so I don't see why you are trying to grab more land. You want Berwick, you want Carlisle. What else? Maybe Newcastle - yeah, I'm sure the Geordies consider themselves as true Scotsmen.
"Adam, there is little point in discussing the legitimacy of Cornish Rights, and a very real policy of cultural genocide of the Cornish people, through these message boards. It is solely a matter for an independent judicial process. This should preferrably be at Strasbourg. "
We shouldn't listen to anything the people of Strasbourg have to say until the French give Strasbourg back to Germany where it belongs and until they give independence to the Celtic nation of Brittany.
Until then, we have Cornwall. That's a fair compromise.
We shouldn't listen to anything the people of Strasbourg have to say until the French give Strasbourg back to Germany where it belongs and until they give independence to the Celtic nation of Brittany.
Until then, we have Cornwall. That's a fair compromise.
<<<We shouldn't listen to anything the people of Strasbourg>>>
Latest from the Council of Europe, Strasbourg
"The latest news we have on the 2nd UK report is that it will be submitted in March. Depending on its actual receipt and processing, and the country visit, it is possible that an opinion will be adopted at the Autumn plenary."
http://www.cornish-stannary-parliament.abelgratis.com/page28.html
http://www.geecee.co.uk/CNMR/
Latest from the Council of Europe, Strasbourg
"The latest news we have on the 2nd UK report is that it will be submitted in March. Depending on its actual receipt and processing, and the country visit, it is possible that an opinion will be adopted at the Autumn plenary."
http://www.cornish-stannary-parliament.abelgratis.com/page28.html
http://www.geecee.co.uk/CNMR/
The EU is the organisation that says that Britain is NOT an island.
So if they say that Cornwall is a country it means:
1) The EUropeans are bonkers. They believe Britain isn't an island so believing that Cornwall is a country isn't really surprising.
2) It also means they are poking their noses into English domestic affairs that have nothing to do with them.
So if they say that Cornwall is a country it means:
1) The EUropeans are bonkers. They believe Britain isn't an island so believing that Cornwall is a country isn't really surprising.
2) It also means they are poking their noses into English domestic affairs that have nothing to do with them.