Talk:Cornwall (territorial duchy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
- Would it not make more sense to segregate the two diametrically opposed views of the Cornish Duchy so that the territorial aspects of this unique entity may be fully presented and examined, with, hopefully, the inclusion of primary source material for reference and context? -- TGG 23:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious statement
I removed the statement regarding the foreshore case because it was inaccurate and misleading. Firstly, it was a abitration not a court case and secondly, the case was about mining rights in Cornwall and had nothing to do with territorial rights (and the final decision was a comprimise anyway so noone succesfully argued anything). josh (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whilst the Foreshore Case was, in fact, an arbitration it was set up as such to avoid the need for a court case yet still facilitate enacting an Act of Parliament. The Crown set the terms of reference for the arbitration and, accordingly, the Award was based on the presentation of legal argument supported by legal documents, statutes etc., by both the Crown and the Duchy. The Case was principally about ownership of the Foreshore (not mining rights) - and, therefore, Territorial! - to see whether the Crown had its usual prima facie right to this property within the Duchy. Therefore NOT a compromise! From the evidence submitted by the Officers of the Duchy, it is possible (even probable), that the Crown would not have been awarded the land below low-water mark - had it gone through the public legal route. -- TGG 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)