Lord Berkeley is presenting a Bill to Parliament which includes restructuring the Duchy of Cornwall as a trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall.
This proposal is made against the challenging background of the politicisation of the English Language.
At the age of thirteen in 1949, I attended a regular RK (Religious Knowledge) Lesson at the Humphry Davy Grammar School, Penzance. The teacher read out a passage from the Bible which included:- “And Jesus said, I say unto you it is easier for a camel to go through the needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. (Matthew 19/24). I put up my hand. Yes? and I asked, “Does this mean that the King will not go to heaven because he’s rich”. The Teacher responded: “How impudent! come here! follow me!” I was marched up the Headmaster’s Office and caned on both hands. Are royal questions still banned?
It is noted that no Act of Parliament has established a legal right of exemption from the strictures of the Bible for the Royal Family. Consequently, the Monarchy and Royal Family should be constitutionally required to affirm that they are, at the very least, Defenders of all the Nations of the United Kingdom. Any form of punishment for asking questions in this area is, therefore, nothing but the abuse of power which should be constitutionally established as illegal.
In 1997, I asked the newly elected MP, Andrew George, if he could ask questions in Parliament about the Duchy of Cornwall. He said he would find out. He sent me a copy of a letter from the House of Commons Library which stated: “there are restrictions on any question which casts reflections upon the Sovereign or the Royal Family”. Members of Parliament must swear true allegiance to H.M. The Queen with hand on the Bible. The intention of this dedication must be to establish equal allegiance for the Bible and the Monarch as Defender of the Faith.
However, it would appear that an official declaration of “cast reflections” or ‘bring discredit upon’ is considered justification for the punishment of ‘No Questions and No Answers’ to silence minorities. This is not of general application in keeping with the principle of equality before the law. The teaching and political institutions have apparently found ways to exercise power by manipulating the English language and administering punishment regardless of the principles of democracy.
As well as “people power”, ‘Democracy’, is found to include such definitions as: “a form of society ignoring hereditary class distinction and tolerating minority views”, as well as: “a social condition of classlessness and equality” and requiring, “a full discussion of common problems”.
A further refinement of the use of politicised English is to be found in the
“Crown Application” publication of the ‘Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’ dated 1st August 2008, recently released to the public through the persistence of Notary Public, Dr. John Kirkhope. Paragraph 101 states:
“ There is no question of personal immunity from legislation for any member of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign. This includes the Prince of Wales”.
You might be forgiven, though mistaken, for nurturing the belief that the phrase: “This includes the Prince of Wales” means: no personal immunity for the Prince of Wales. The Duke of Cornwall is also the Prince of Wales.
Personal immunity is confirmed for His/Her Majesty in His/Her private capacity at section 40 (1) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. However, section 38 (3) states: “Any reference in this Act to His Majesty in His private capacity shall be construed as a reference to His Majesty in right of His Duchy of Lancaster and to the Duke of Cornwall”. The Duke of Cornwall, therefore, has immunity on a par with the Monarch.
A reference is made to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in other Acts of Parliament under: ‘Crown Application’ e.g., The Equality Act 2010 section 205 with note No. 649: “This section does not affect Her Majesty in her private capacity”. This automatically “does not affect” the Duke of Cornwall.
So, officially the law provides personal immunity for the Duke of Cornwall by inclusion under His or Her Majesty in His or Her private capacity. The Duke of Cornwall is, therefore, not included with other members of the Royal Family as apparently indicated by the ‘Office of Parliamentary Counsel’ document: “Crown Application” para.101, above.
This official information has been arranged in a manner that encourages a general belief, and thus discourages questions, rather than care to inform the public of the actual facts. Furthermore, to prevent the possibility of an inquiry claiming a public interest, the Duke of Cornwall, Heir to the Throne, is now exempt from any questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Schedule 7.
Contrary to the historical evidence, the Duchy of Cornwall is claimed by the Treasury and the Duke to be a private estate. A clear case of ‘because we say so’. Apparently, this arbitrary decision is intended to avoid questions concerning the reason why the racist policies of the Duchy Charters of 1337 are being retained and defended at every turn.
In the Cornwall Foreshore dispute of 1858 between the Monarchy and the Duchy, the Duchy claimed to be the Government of Cornwall and was awarded the foreshore of Cornwall as a “territorial possession”. This so-called private estate, exempt from questions, is, under sections 1012/3 of the Companies Act 2006, the beneficiary of “Property of Dissolved Company” and “Property vesting as Bona Vacantia”. A unique unprecedented arrangement applicable to the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall only.
The profits from Cornwall especially: minerals, foreshore, rivers, intestate estates treasure trove and gold and silver in Cornwall were augmented by an extraordinary official act of compensation for loss of certain Duchy mineral taxes amounting to £16,216.00 per annum from 1838-1983. The Duchy has invested much of the profits from Cornwall outside Cornwall. (£16,216.00 in 1838 would, at today’s values, be worth approximately £1 million).
The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall has been accompanied for centuries with action to ensure that the English national majority of the UK are taught to believe that it is normal for them to be exempt from contributing towards the upkeep of an Heir to the Throne. This could mean the loss of democratic control of the Monarchy.
The many examples of duality of meaning has created a deep seated element of distrust and scepticism among the indigenous British Cornish national minority.
A break with the past, sympathetic with the message of the Official King James Version of the Bible, would clearly establish trust, for example: St. Luke, Chapter 18 verse 22: “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor”.
Since the Duchy of Cornwall is not permitted to sell any of the Duchy’s assets,
it would be appropriate to support Lord Berkeley who is sponsoring the “Rights of the Sovereign and Duchy of Cornwall Bill 2012-2013” as an amendment to the “Sovereign Grant Act 2011”. This courageous Lord proposes that:-
“The assets and property of the Duchy of Cornwall shall be transferred to and shall vest in a public trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly”.
An “Explanatory Memorandum” for the proposed Trust section reads:-
(3) “This requires the assets of the Duchy of Cornwall to be transferred to a public trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It seeks to regularise the status of the Duchy. At present, there is public uncertainty as to whether it is a public or private body or ‘above the law’. It would also mean that the Trust would pay the appropriate taxes in a transparent manner, as well as being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, required to comply with environmental and adopt housing and leasehold policies etc., and other legislation as a public body with no Crown immunity. It would not be allowed to obtain free legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor”.
The Cornish are being subjected to identity theft and the current Bill, if passed into law, would go a long way towards rectifying the present situation with the abolition of the feudal charters and conventions which still promote the racial discrimination of the past. It is time for English democracy to make a constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.
Held in trust, the proceeds of the Duchy of Cornwall would help to promote the Cornish language and culture.
I am sure that all thinking Cornish people will wholeheartedly support Lord Berkeley and Notary Public, Dr. John Kirkhope in their attempts to add racial objectivity to the English legal system.
16th April 2013.