Talk:Cornish Foreshore Case

Sources/Template
I've tagged this article due to problems with its content and the sources used to back it up. Much of the material here is sourced (footnotes 1,7,8,9,12) to what appear to be self-published websites run by an activist, John Angarrack. This material has not been properly attributed, and arguably it is unsuitable for inclusion altogether. Skimming through his "Duchy of Cornwall" website, much of it appears taken up with pretty bizarre and WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories about the deceit and constitutional skullduggery allegedly undertaken by Prince Charles and others. Surely there are serious legal and historical sources that can be used instead to provide proper content on this case and any broader issues that arise from it? Unless anyone can offer a convincing reason for retaining a lot of what is here currently, it needs to go.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is little contextual information here.Serpren (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about making some further changes to this page – it still treats this case as if it were a defining ruling on Cornwall's quasi-independence from the UK, when it appears to be no such thing, and instead simply an arbitration on a minor technical point. There are also factual errors, eg it was not about the ownership of the foreshore as such, but about mineral rights under the foreshore. The problem is that sources are limited: there's plenty on Cornish nationalist discussion boards but nothing much at all in serious authoritative sources or academic legal ones (which also kind of reinforces the point about it not being as significant – or even notable, although I'm loath to suggest outright deletion – as some people think; unless that's all part of the conspiracy). I'll keep looking and maybe try to make some changes.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting information here;

The answer to a question in the Commons about who owns the foreshore in Britain has shown that the foreshore is not an issue of sovereignty or constitutional status (Hansard 10 February 2009 column 1847W). The government reply about this part of the country was: “The duchy of Cornwall owns all the Isles of Scilly foreshore and the majority of the foreshore in Cornwall”. The word ‘majority’ is intriguing and leads me to wonder which parts of the foreshore of Cornwall it does not own. However, the refutation of sovereignty and constitutional status came in the first part of the reply: “The Crown Estate owns around fifty five percent of the foreshore around the UK. The rest of the foreshore is owned by various bodies, including the Crown and the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, such as port authorities, local authorities, the National Trust, and private individuals.” Clearly private individuals and the National Trust, for example, are not sovereign entities, independent of England, and with a special constitutional status. Those attributes and powers are not conferred by ownership of the foreshore. The ownership of the foreshore is not in itself a question of sovereignty or constitutional status but of land ownership and, as in the Submarine Mines Act 1858, of any use and profits there from. Serpren (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

http://mudhook.wordpress.com/category/aristotles-teeth/