BBC HomeExplore the BBC
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving.

28 October 2014
BBC Cornwall Have Your Say BBC Cornwall Have Your Say
BBC Cornwall Have Your Say

BBC Homepage

Extreme Sports
Alex Parks
Video Nation
Junior Football
Message Board
BBC Local Radio
Site Map



Contact Us

Do you want a fully independent Cornwall?
Protesters against the south west assembly

How should our county be run? Have your say on self-government, a south west assembly, Westminster and the EU.

How can we preserve our unique culture and move forward in the 21st Century?

Do you support the aims of Mebyon Kernow for a legislative Cornish Assembly for self-government within the UK?

Or do you think greater independence could put off investment from the rest of the UK?

Would we be better off as part of a south west assembly or would we end up being governed by Bristol and Exeter?

Do you feel Cornish, British or both?

*latest mail from the top

Click here to have your say now.

Oh dear, the phrase 'if the cap fits….' springs easily to mind but thanks, nevertheless, for the response by Bob Burns.

I was not only referring specifically to this discussion(!) but to the general trend of views expressed in opposition to the Cornish arguments. I had, in fact, read six webpages of this discussion and would need to be advised on Bob's definition of 'trivialising'.

I am sure that Athelstan was considered to be king of all Wessex, which ostensibly included Devonshire, and a key player in England's history which one would have thought any English person would have been proud to associate themselves. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on Wessex could provide some meaningful edification?

At least Bob acknowledges the synonymy between British and English. What amazes me is that he can only identify one source of its use. Perhaps, for now, I shall just let him ponder on this rather sophisticated coercive Imperial gem and encourage him to analyse the use of the words 'England' and 'English', in spontaneous conversation, whenever he hears them used. It is somewhat concerning that one's association with 'being Celtic' has to rely on some academic genetic research.

I am still unclear as to what such research proves, seeks to prove or, indeed, its relevance. It would be most strange if during the inexorable push west of the invading germanic tribes, over a period of, say, five hundred years that all the Celtic-speaking people were totally supplanted by the incomers and that some were not assimilated into the new order. I have no wish to attempt to divert people from their chosen path to happiness since this is a personal choice but from my side of the Cornish-English Border, Devonshire is perceived as being one of the most English of English counties. I referred to the Southwest agencies hijacking, seemingly, the strengths of the Cornish identity - not Devonshire!

One must wonder, however, if this is, perhaps, something more than just a coincidence. Rather than perpetuate the waffling over the meaning of Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 2902, perhaps Bob - as it seems so important to him! - could ask his friendly solicitor, or someone in the know, to spell out what it all means. Then he could genuinely enlighten us all. I am happy in the knowledge that the Duchy of Cornwall refers to the whole territory of Cornwall, whereas any Duchy property located outside of Cornwall forms only a part (little or large as Devonshire) of whichever administrative county it happens to be in. Bob seems rather hot under the collar for some reason.

Historically Devonshire and Somersetshire have been precisely that and, given Bob's interpretation of history, it is anomalous that Cornwall was never Cornwallshire. It is simply not good enough just to dismiss this fact as if it has no relevance. Nowhere have I stated or implied that a 'shire' suffix - which simply denotes an administrative division - only refers to a 'Saxon' shire. The other examples he quotes might have more to do with the Saxon Heptarchy than to the early development of Wessex. One can hardly argue that Devonshire's history has been misrepresented without, I imagine, also acknowledging that Cornish history has also been misrepresented.

If he rereads my posting, however, he will find that I made a specific reference to official misrepresentation of "our Cornish Duchy" and its constitution. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Cornish arguments directly or indirectly misrepresent the position of Devonshire within the English/British State. There has been, hitherto, no position to misrepresent. Post tenth-century Devonshire can certainly share a history and evolution with its English neighbours but any comparison with Cornwall can only ever be tenuous at best. I note the points that Bob chose, interestingly, not to respond to.
TGG, Trevarth

Perhaps if JGG had bothered to go back far enough through these postings, he would have discovered that it was the Cornish Nationalists who started trivialising the debate by using abusive language and name calling. Getting down to the more important points, the name Wessex was never associated with Devon, until the Tudor cartographer John Speed decided, for some unaccountable reason, to add Devon to Wessex (incidentally, I have even seen maps showing Cornwall in Wessex). I have only ever heard the word 'British' being used as a synonym for 'English' by Americans, who never fail to upset the Scots by saying that they have just been to 'Scotland, England'. Surely the Cornish aren't as ignorant on such matters as the Americans. What on Earth is a pseudo-Celt? Perhaps we have some new Cornish Nationalist definitions here: (1) A Celt; Someone who is genetically predominantly Celtic and from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Cornwall or Brittany. (2) A pseudo-Celt; Someone who is genetically predominantly Celtic and not from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Cornwall or Brittany. Is that what JGG means? Just in case JGG is ill informed on these matters, genetic research has shown conclusively that the current population of the whole of the South West is every bit as Celtic as the people of the Scottish Highlands. So the people of Devon are not trying to hijack Cornish identity, as we have our own Celtic identity thank you very much, which just happens to be similar to yours. Regarding Statutory instrument 1992 No. 2902, if the Duchy of Cornwall does not have some claim to the rivers and foreshore of Devon (as well as those of Cornwall), then why on Earth might the Duchy have an interest and therefore need to be notified as standard procedure just in case? They certainly don't seem to have an interest in the rivers and foreshore of Dorset or Norfolk. I am sorry but JGG really does seem to be clutching at straws on that one. I have no idea why Athelstan didn't name the county 'Cornwallshire'. It was probably for the same reason that there isn't a Somersetshire, a Sussexshire or an Essexshire. If JGG seriously thinks that the ending shire automatically makes a county 'Saxon', he had better tell a rugby forward from Cardiganshire, or a 20 stone kilted caber tosser from Argyllshire that, and see how long it takes him to wake up in hospital. Oh, by the way, the official name is Devon, not Devonshire. Again, if JGG would care to search back through the postings, he will find that we Devonians have always acknowledged the fact that the history of Cornwall has been misrepresented, but it has been the Cornish Nationalists (in an attempt to demonstrate their uniqueness), who have done their best to perpetuate the misrepresentation of Devon history. Who wants a 'Devonwall' We Devonians certainly don't 'foreigners from the dark valleys' no thanks. We just want the Cornish Nationalists to stop trying to justify their 'separateness' by misrepresenting Devon. But perhaps that is the only way they know how.
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber

There is one common agenda emanating from those opposed to conceding any rights to the Cornish people and this is manifested by the bizarre use of extreme and emotive terminology coupled to arrogant trivialisation of the whole debate.

The attempt by some Devonshire people, within this discussion, to deny themselves an English identity and move straight from being Devonian to British is interesting. Bizarre, but interesting! It is for them alone to argue and justify. It is certainly a new phenomenon to me and all power to them, but what happened to Wessex? Perhaps they might also explain the origins of the almost universal perception of this sceptred isle, where 'British' is seen to be synonymous with 'English'. The interesting aspect of this is that there has been a noticeable shift in the promotion of the English Southwest over the past, say, fifteen years where we see what appears to be a deliberate hijacking of the strengths of the Cornish identity to develop a pseudo-Celtic Southwest.

The purpose of this 'shift' seems to be to provide a pseudo-cultural comparison to Wales and Brittany as the devious means of furthering 'English' regional aspirations. Recent media promotions (ITV. sorry!) of this mythological beast now seems intent on encouraging the concept of an English Southwest Motherland. One must surely, therefore, question the motives of certain writers and ask whether they have been deliberately planted by the BBC to perpetuate an irrelevant debate based as it is on such proffered premises and obscure logic?

Regarding references to Statutory Instrument 1992 No.2902 and the suggestion that this proves that the Duchy of Cornwall has the same rights to the rivers, foreshore etc, throughout the English county of Devonshire as it has within the Duchy of Cornwall: Surely, the only conclusion to be drawn from that document can only be that the Duchy 'might' have an interest and should, therefore, be notified as a matter of standard procedure - just in case? - or, have I missed something?

I am also confused as to why, if Athelstan, set the Tamar Border as simply a 'county' boundary along with so many others at that time, the territory was not named Cornwall-shire in the same manner as all those on the English side of the Tamar? Also, perhaps we could be enlightened as to how a tenth-century 'county' compares to a 'shire' and what constitutional quirk could exist to enable one of the first Acts of the Duke of Cornwall, in 1351, to initiate his own form of domesday survey to inquire "which those persons of Cornwall and England have.."? This unique legal and constitutional distinction has been observed by many subsequent writers and was most certainly a factor uppermost in the mind of Edward III in 1337.

One aspect of identity, lost to the Imperial English mind, is a mutual recognition of others having a similar struggle for denied rights. This inherent camaraderie, clearly, does not emanate from those promoting a distinct lost Devonshire identity. Whilst misrepresentation of Devonshire's obscure past is alleged, together with a pathetic attempt to remove any concept of the 'E' word, there is no parallel acknowledgement that official misrepresentation is also true of our Cornish Duchy. In fact, it seems, that they are more interested in trivialising the Cornish Case than most and are only making a case for some form of Imperial Region which might just coincide with something resembling Dumnonia.

Do you get the picture? A sort of pseudo-Celtic Southwest which just happens to submerge everything within an expanded Devonshire - a true Devonwall construct. A Devonshire Province with the resuscitated, and tainted, name of Dumnonia. In the absence of any official (BBC) comment on the validity of the subject title - a point also raised by previous writers - I would treat this whole exercise with caution and contempt. The Cornish argument is faultless and all people with conscience should be demanding a moratorium on all policies which can be shown to be acting against the interests of Cornish Rights until there is truth and reconciliation over the Cornish Question.

Interesting point from Phil in Oman. Yes, we need some very detailed debate on policy, and I'd be very glad to hear your ideas on, say, economic development, culture and communication, or education and training. And given that you (like many of us) are writing from a long way away, how do you see the Cornish exiles as best making a contribution to the welfare of the homeland? P.S. It's just as well that tedium isn't a spectator sport, otherwise some of our esteemed correspondents could bore for England!
Tim, Caerdydd

I once read the Mebyon Kernow mandate thinking that maybe I would find something in it that I could vote for and I must say that frankly, I was disappointed. Some of the ideas that they were putting across seemed to me to be unachievable. However, now is a good time for the party to show that it really is in tune with the people, as most voters are dissatisfied with all three of the major parties. Mebyon Kernow should concentrate on how they would solve the real main issues that people face in Cornwall, i.e. unemployment, housing, National Health, education, the fishing industry, the farming industry, etc. Do they have a realistic method of solving these problems? Let's forget about the ethnic rubbish and let's concentrate on the real issues that people are concerned with, health, wealth and education.
PhilT Cornishman in Oman

At last, a few rays of common sense and moderation albeit from an unexpected source, if we can take at face value what Conan Jenkin is telling us about the aims of Mebyon Kernow.

However, to be fair to the BBC, I think that their misunderstanding of the policies of Mebyon Kernow is probably based on the original aims of the party in the 1950s and 60s.

In the late 60s, I had a protracted correspondence with the then chairman Mr. Robert Dunstone, who told me in no uncertain terms that he had no time for anyone to the East of the Tamar, as he was a Celt and they were all Saxons, and that the only good thing ever to come out of Devon was the road to Cornwall. In this day and age, with up to date knowledge of history and genetics, such a stance is no longer viable, and in any case reeks of fascist style racism.

Despite MK abandoning such unsavoury and outmoded attitudes, there still remains a persistent core of Nationalists who still promote racism and hatred from t! he! sanctuary of their venomous web sites, some of whose doctrinal attitudes have appeared in this forum.

If we are to believe Mr. Jenkin, when he states that ethnicity has no part to play in Cornish Nationalism (and there is no reason to doubt his sincerity), then perhaps he would care to enlighten us on what singles out Cornwall as a distinct and separate nation, but not (for instance) Kent, Lancashire, Cumbria or Rutland. If it is because the Cornish wish to have more autonomy over their own affairs, then I would refer him to the forum on devolution at BBC Devon, where the overwhelming (and strongly expressed) opinion is that the Devonians have no time for the concept of a seven county mega region, and want substantially increased powers for a new Devon Assembly.

The big difference seems to be that there is no demand to be recognised as a separate nation, and therefore there is no ‘Mebyon Dewnans’. What particularly annoys Devonians is the way that Devon is treated by the Cornish Nationalists. They presume to dictate that although the seven county mega region is ‘not for Cornwall’, it is perfectly acceptable for the other six (including Devon). They also try to back up their claims for a separate and unique identity for Cornwall by blatantly misrepresenting the history, ethnicity and culture of the Devonians, in order to distance themselves from Devon. I have already given, as an example, the way in which the contribution of the people of Devon, in the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, has been deliberately written out of the account, as told by Cornish ‘historians?’, in order to emphasise the Cornish ‘uniqueness’.

This practice may seem (to some) to be fairly harmless, but there is already evidence that it is poisoning the minds of Cornish children toward their Devonian neighbours (note some of the letters from Cornish school child! re! n in the book “Cornwall For Ever”). All I can say is that if the Nationalists have to resort to presenting distorted facts about Devon, in order to prove their separateness, then their case cannot be a particularly strong one.
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber

As part of the leadership team of Mebyon Kernow - the Party of Cornwall, there are a number of issues aired via this forum that require a sensible response. Firstly the BBC have substantially misrepresented the position of Mebyon Kernow and its members. Mebyon Kernow does not advocate independence from the UK. Our present published policy position is 'greater independence within the UK'.

Devolution for Cornwall is widely accepted within the community that lives in Cornwall. The present debate is not about whether devolution should take place, but the level of devolution. As you would expect Mebyon Kernow - the Party for Cornwall advocates more substantial devolution than either The Labour party, The Conservative party or The Liberal Democratic party. Secondly, the disappointing debate that exists amongst many of the contributors to this site has seemed to equate Cornish Nationalism with ethnic identity.

The reality, of course, is that political nationalism in Cornwall advocated by Mebyon Kernow has long adopted the civic form of Nationalism that is favoured by the Scottish National Party. This is all inclusive and recognizes that a modern Cornwall is a pluralist society that has a broad multi-cultural base. Racism can have no place in a modern society (whether Cornish or English). Cornish Nationalism is not ethnic, many of the Cornish Nationalists that I frequently come into contact both in Mebyon Kernow and outside could be ethnically described as 'english'. Yet Cornish Nationalists are committed to enhancing the welfare of Cornwall and all of its community. I hope the debates within this forum start to reflect more these realities. Oll an gwella, All the best
Conan Jenkin - Communications Officer, Mebyon Kernow, Truro, Kernow

All of this talk of Cornish independence stems from what? Basically, it’s the result of people living in the county becoming so frustrated with the way successive British governments have totally ignored the deteriorating rural conditions within the county. As you all should know by now, Cornwall has been designated Priority One status by the EU. That means it is amongst 46 poorest areas in Europe. The average income in Cornwall is just 75% of the European average whereas the South-east of England has an average income of two and half times the European average. Cornwall currently pays nearly £2billion a year in taxes to central government, but only gets £1.65billion back - a shortfall of £350million every year. House prices in Cornwall are compatible to areas further west but wages are much lower. Unemployment in Cornwall, realistically is around 12% although the government would deny this. A large proportion of people work for minimum wages within the hospitality! industry, which is not only low paying but seasonal as well. Our tin mining industry was allowed to collapse. Our fishing industry was allowed to collapse. Our farming industry has come under fire in the past few years. So tell me, do you think we could do any worse if we were independent? I think not. We have a saying in Cornwall: the fishing's scat, the mining's scat and the farming's scat. Looks like it's back to wrecking boys.
Phil T, Cornishman in Oman

Speaking as a descendent of the Bronze Age people of the South West, I challenge the right of the Iron Age Celtic descendents (the Cornish) to claim that our ancient monuments are their heritage. These monuments raised by our ancestors, such as the Dolmen, Menhirs, Hut Circles, Stone Rows, Stone Circles (including Stonehenge) etc., were here in our ancient land, long before the Iron Age Celts set foot in this island. Not only did these invaders deprived us of our ancient tongue, by forcing us to adopt their own language, but also drove us into the Western extremities by their acts of ethnic cleansing and cultural theft. Next time they claim that the English have stolen their heritage, because the English were not here when the (Bronze Age) monuments were erected, they should stop and consider that neither were they (the Celts). So, hands off our monuments, you Cornish thieves.
Den an Fro Breidh, Teh Kren Hueh, Keas Grim

Welcome back Dyalor Kernewek. I hope you had a good holiday at Perranzabuloe. I must apologise for assuming that you had buried you head in the sand like some of your colleagues, I didn't know you were away. However, I still note that you haven’t answered any of the points I made in my reply to your previous posting. Instead you have hurled accusations at me about being a Devon Nationalist (whatever one of those may be). If you would care to read some of my most recent postings, you would see that I am opposed to all forms of rampant nationalism, wherever it originates. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask again the questions I raised in answer to your last posting.

Firstly you state that the Dukes of Cornwall exercised a prerogative right to double the ‘coinage’ for Cornwall, which they could not legally do in England. According to my researches, the double coinage rate for Cornwall was imposed in 1198 AD, so was obviously not imposed by a Duke of Cornwall, as there were no Dukes of Cornwall (who were heirs to the throne) until 1337. You also haven't answered my point about the tin tax in Devon being double that in Cornwall prior to 1197. Comments please.

On the statutes concerning 'Bona Vacantia', are you aware that the provisions regarding the Duchy of Cornwall are not unique in England, as they also apply to the Duchy of Lancaster. You used the word 'unique'. Distorted fact? In my reply to Hunlef, I stated the following:- Your point about the ‘Foreshore Dispute’ also raises an interesting point. You seem to be claiming that the Duke’s rights can only be exercised in the geographical area of Cornwall (including the foreshore), and that it would be illegal for him to do so anywhere else.

Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 2902 states:-

(1) Authority sought in order:- 1. Works affecting the foreshore below mean high water spring tides, tidal waters, or the bed of, or the subsoil beneath tidal waters.
(2) Persons to be served:- 1. (a) In or adjacent to England or Wales, the Crown Estate Commissioners and the National Rivers Authority; and (b) In or adjacent to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and (c) In or adjacent to Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales; and (d) In or adjacent to the counties of Devon and Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the Duchy of Cornwall; and (e) In or adjacent to the counties of Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside and Cheshire, the Duchy of Lancaster. There are similar provisions for works affecting the banks or the riverbed of, or the subsoil beneath, a river. Now unless I am mistaken, your interpretation of the Duke’s rights means that the above Statutory Instrument is either illegal, or Devon is not a part of England. Comments please.

Interestingly, I received no comments from Hunlef. This brings me neatly on to the ‘Duchy’ clause in the Tamar Bridge Act 1998. As the foundations of the towers of the bridge are in the subsoil of the river, I would have been very surprised if the clause had not been included, as Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 2902 obviously applies. Any comments? If Dyalor Kernewek is going to pursue his claims, let's have some facts, which stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps he would care to respond to these points, and he still hasn't told us what it is that he is avenging
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber

Mitten da Bob ha oll, Had a nice holiday on the Costa del Perranzabuloe and am now back to educate.

Bob, I take exception to your posting that you use 'verifiable' facts whereas I use 'distorted' facts which makes me a Nationalist and you not.

You once applauded me on the depth and breadth of my posting, every aspect of which was clearly articulated and supported by either Act, Statute or Law so that even the most sceptical of you out there would at least assume that I was not in the game of bullsh**ing when dealing with matters of the utmost importance with regards to the unique Constitutional position of Kernow. You, however, seem to wish (as all Nationalists do) that none of these VERFIABLE facts exist. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, they do and are not going away just because you want them to. It appears to anybody having witnessed your Devonian Nationalist rantings, that your word cannot be taken seriously when you have the sheer arrogance to dismiss postings supported by verifiable facts which are writ in stone and are not subject to individual interpretation (especially by the likes of you, who wish to imbue the word of Law with your own Nationalistic bigotry).

The Acts, Statutes and Laws to which I reffered, are within the British Constitution, "English" Law and will remain extant until an Act is passed to repeal them. So, just get used to the fact that just because you don't like them does not mean that they are "distorted" according to your mindset. The Law of the land is just that, either accept it or change it!
Dyalor Kernewek, Rysrudth

My humblest appologies to the Picts. In my rush to finish my last post, I left you out. No offense intended.

Just to clarify what I said before, I have no problem with identity/ethnic awareness, as long as it doesn't turn into rampant nationalism and hatred for all those "not of the clan". As my fellow Devonians have stated, our Celtic heritage has been hidden from us even more so than for the Cornish. In fact, to a large extent, it has been the misinformation, from the Cornish Nationalist minority, about the (non existant) distinct racial divide at the Tamar, which has perpetuated this lack of undersatnding about our heritage. The big difference between the enlightened Devonians and the Cornish Nationalists, is that we haven't declared that people from Dorset and Somerset are racist, imperialist foreigners, because we know that they aren't. We are also open minded enough to realise that many of the problems, which the nationalists claim are unique to Cornwall, also apply to many areas of Britain which are remote from London.

Awareness of ethnic identity is to be welcomed, but should not be allowed to evolve into malignant separatism. At the end of the day, we are all British.
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber

The game is afoot! A new political party has been launched, The English Democratic Party. The EDP will contest seats at the next general election,by-elections and council elections.Cornwall is to have as much autonomy as desired (including seperation),from an English parliament. It will be interesting to see how Cornwall votes in the future.
Tally, Darlington

In answer to Steve Garrett, I agree with what my passport tells me I am, i.e. "British Citizen". If we had less of the English, Welsh, Scottish (or even Cornish), there would be less of the Nationalistic rubbish that we get today. This is Great Britain, which has (in regional groupings) Brythonic Celts, Goidelic Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danish Vikings, Norwegian Vikings, Normans(?) and any other ethnic grouping (who I appologise to for not mentioning), and that just represents the first Millenium or so. It is when we start talking about the names "English", "Welsh" and "Scots" that we get into deep water. English implies "Angles", Scottish implies "Dalriada Scots" (an Irish Goidelic Tribe) and Welsh just means "Foreigner" in Anglo-Saxon. Now do you see why I try to avoid words like "English", and why I am opposed to the Cornish creating yet another nationalist group (especially as there is no difference between them and their neighbours). Oh Mel! Just try rearranging the spaces.
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber

In answer to Steve! Perhaps this is the wrong forum for a discussion on Devon - go look at the BBC Devon website (under 'sense of place'). However, being presumptious enough to comment for both Devon and Cornwall, perhaps you don't appreciate that for hundreds of years both of "us" have been typecast as something we are not. This is not unique to the south west. Go look at India or Singapore. Both devoutly British - until the British /(English) dumped them. I suspect the problem stems back to the 'British empire'. However Britain never was united, neither abroad nor at home. The (media?) attitude nowadays of 'bow down to London' sticks in the craw of many Devonians and Cornish. I am surprised that the north west is so happy to rest its head under London's boot. In fact 'is it?' That sounds extreme - and I don't intend that any nastiness should be read into it. However - Britain was always an amalgam of different backgrounds - and that is Britain's strength. The fact that we now have people from India/Pakistan/West Indies etc.. living amongst us is a boon - so long as we allow it to be one. So - enjoy! But that doesn't mean that multi-culturism means 'no diversity' don't try to undermine that variety has made Britain what it is - and Devon (and Cornwall) what THEY ARE.
Keith, Plymouth

The current discussion needs to be put in perspective. 40 years ago - when I was just a young lad growing up in Saltash - the nationalist movement (if I may call it that) was confined to western Cornwall. Then - we - being in eastern Cornwall - were apparently too 'misinformed' to really understand our background. then - only those in the west (where the Cornish language died out) were apparently the true Cornish. We - supposedly - had lost our heritage! We weren't 'real cornish'. Come on! I remember those messages from the 'so called nationalists'. Get real! The story I read today is apparently different - we are now a unified people - and for sure many of us in south east Cornwall are happy to claim our nationhood - and always were - but I do remember! Back when I was a lad both sides of the Tamar were Janners - and the west didn't seem to like that. Well - we are Cornish, and we are Janners. Thank you!
Peter, St Germans

Tim, Do I sound like a 'Charles Ormonde Roderick Edgar Francis'? You were obviously wrong. Couldn't you have picked the 'O' was for an Oswald??? 'Yeghes'!
Coref, Noss Mayo, Devon

Is 'Coref's' nom-de-plume an acronym for something like 'Charles Ormonde Roderick Edgar Francis', or an indication of his favourite drink?
Tim Saunders, Caerdydd

Fee, Fi, Fo Fum ……. So! Keith, Bob, Coref and others don’t consider themselves English, but rather ‘Devonian’ or ‘British’. In fact Keith ‘objects to being called English’. Why is that then? Do the English cheat at games – or just push grannies into the gutter? What is wrong with you people? It’s almost as if you are ashamed of the Country you were born in – and of its values and standards that are admired throughout the World. Or is it because you are ‘Celts’? Because I call myself ‘English’ I must be a Saxon, right? Err… wrong! My ancestry comes from Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the Isle of Man – I am a sort of super Celt, but my family have lived in England for 200 years. I don’t live in the past, or insult my fellow countrymen by denying the country of my birth. To consider yourselves ‘Devonian’ and then ‘British’ is a joke. Don’t you know what is going on at the moment? The U.K. is fissuring – people that consider themselves ‘British’ are dwindling faster than Marconi’s share price. Pretty soon, being called ‘British’ will have gone the way of the dinosaur. So what are you, Keith, Bob, and Coref – Jurassic, Cretaceous or Devonian? Steve Garrett, Lancashire

ALB IONONTH EMARCH! - Anagram? Acronym? Give us a clue, Tommy, give us a clue!
Mel, Menheniot

back to talk index             

back to previous comments

More comments

Top | Have Your Say Index | Home
Also in this section

Have your say
Should hunting be banned?

Should Cornwall be independent?

Firefighter's dispute

News Surfing Uncovered Contact Us
BBC Cornwall
Phoenix Wharf, Truro, Cornwall
01872 275421

About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy