WRONG!!! Wales most certainly DID exist in 500 A.D.!!! England on the other hand was not founded until around 900 A.D. Wales started to form it's own Kingdoms around 410, after the last of the Roman legions left.
As you should know there are plenty of honorific titles in the UK that have no real legal or constitutional connection to any particular territory, and that give no constitutional powers or privileges. The title 'Prince of Wales' is one such example but there are plenty more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_of_Great_Britain
The title 'Duke of Cornwall' however does have a constitutional significance and offer powers and privileges as I have already shown with previous links.
It's now called Cornwall Council / Lys Kernow ever since the creation of the unitary authority, but anyway, yes, Cornwall is administered as an English county, I've never denied that, but it also has a parallel constitutional status as a Duchy. Wales does not.
Just to keep everyone happy, in future when I refer to Cornwall I will say “the nation, duchy, and county of Cornwall” – or perhaps just call it a British administrative district.
Well, if Wales is no longer a principality, then poor old Charles should no longer be the prince of it. But, as you say, Cornwall is a duchy and he is still duke of that, I assume. So what does the Cornish County Council do?
Sorry but Wales is not a principality and hasn't been for a long time. The title Prince of Wales is only honorific and confers no constitutional or legal powers. There is no constitutional or legally recognised definition of Wales as a principality today. BTW following your own logic if there is a Duke and Duchess of Cornwall then Cornwall itself must be a Duchy no?
Wales is not a principality. The Principality of Wales came to an end as a legally defined territory with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. From 1689 to 1948 there was no differentiation between the government of England and government in Wales. All laws relating to England included Wales and Wales was considered by the British Government as an indivisible part of England within the United Kingdom. Equally, the principality of Wales that did exist didn't cover the entire territory of the nation of Wales. The use of the term principality to refer to the territory of Wales should be distinguished from its use to refer to the title of Prince of Wales in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which has been traditionally granted to the heir apparent of the reigning monarch. It confers no responsibility for government in Wales, and has no constitutional meaning outside the peerage.
Cornwall is not just an English county. As well as being the home of the legally recognised Cornish national minority, Cornwall is also a constitutional Duchy, the Duke of Cornwall having very real constitutional powers over the whole territory of Cornwall.
For the record there was no temple to Minerva in Athens. The temple spoken of in this article would have been to Athena Polis. Minerva was Roman, not Greek.
Well David – it would depend on which Selkie myth you chose. Are you pining for one who is faithful until the end, or the usual type, who escapes to the sea with the first chance she gets? lol
An argument could be made for women in regards to the Nordic Fossgrim...a rather suave, but harmless male counterpart.
This is really HILLARIous how a wiki-zombie accuses academics, who in his imagination represent Trump, of their incompetence. However science has to do with something more than Wikipedia and political engagement. First of all, I would advice the wiki-zombie to study Arabic and read Abu Musa Al-Hariri's "Priest and Prophet: story on origin of Islam" (قس ونبی - بحث فی نشأة الاسلام - ابو موسی الحریری) where one can find the summary about the cross-religious dialogue/connections between X-nity and S-lam. Learn about Waraka Bin Nawfal. Second, if one really likes to investigate, start with the Prophet MHMD's genealogical tree, and pay special attention to the connection of MHMD's great-great-grandfather Qusay Bin Kilab Bin Murra to the Tubba Abu Karib As'ad Kamil, Al-Kahinan, Hulail Bin Hushbiya and the shrine of Ka'aba. Third, learn some linguistics and the evolution of the Arab script, horouf and harakat. Fourth, I recommend to read Kees Versteegh's "Arabic in the Pre-Islamic Period". And finally remember A. Schopenhauer's “Clio, the muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis”.
I think I just found the same evidence you have and fully support your theory. The "Elevation Meter" is pretty hard to argue with if it is as accurate as I understand it to be from "known" Depths and Elevations. It would explain a huge amount of discoveries around it.
I may have found it while chasing down other Stories and Locations shared here at Ancient Origins. If so then it has been right under our noses the whole time...we have just been thinking too small. The location would explain a huge number of discoveries over the last 200 years. It Truly fits the Description of Atlantis and there is "in your face" proof all over the place.
Thank you for your reply!, I agree, the refusal to recognize that everything natural does indeed cycle is a problem. There have been Five "Ice Ages" over the last 500,000 years of Mankind yet we refuse to look beyond the very last one. Man could have advanced and declined during every one of these.
I'm just having trouble with the overall sureness that Early Man would never try to stick his toes in the Water. Removing just this concept alone would open huge barriers in thought and discovery. I am very sure that many very early Symbols do indeed share Round Earth and Seafaring knowledge.
But because if the Firewall Mental Block the theories are tossed to the side and never investigated further. Why is the "What if they could?" form of investigation so Radical and Irrational? The theory that man absolutely feared water and would never touch it until only about 4,000 years ago is just as Radical and Irrational and down right lacks any Proof in Fact.
You are right...Those who have proven the Earth Round now once again view it as flat without further discussion. So without any facts to support their own sureness then it could only originate from Superstition, Blindness or Ignorance and is unfortunately a huge loss for Science...
Hi, I registered at your website and it was approved. However, my login credentials are not recognized. There is no contact info. Can you assist me? I really would like to read the book! :)
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
WRONG!!! Wales most certainly DID exist in 500 A.D.!!! England on the other hand was not founded until around 900 A.D. Wales started to form it's own Kingdoms around 410, after the last of the Roman legions left.
Very interesting information. I had better be very careful what I call the place next time I go there. LOL
As you should know there are plenty of honorific titles in the UK that have no real legal or constitutional connection to any particular territory, and that give no constitutional powers or privileges. The title 'Prince of Wales' is one such example but there are plenty more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_of_Great_Britain
The title 'Duke of Cornwall' however does have a constitutional significance and offer powers and privileges as I have already shown with previous links.
It's now called Cornwall Council / Lys Kernow ever since the creation of the unitary authority, but anyway, yes, Cornwall is administered as an English county, I've never denied that, but it also has a parallel constitutional status as a Duchy. Wales does not.
Just to keep everyone happy, in future when I refer to Cornwall I will say “the nation, duchy, and county of Cornwall” – or perhaps just call it a British administrative district.
Well, if Wales is no longer a principality, then poor old Charles should no longer be the prince of it. But, as you say, Cornwall is a duchy and he is still duke of that, I assume. So what does the Cornish County Council do?
We could also say ; " ..in the long term one can never know what will happen to the Christian States".
Lots of Luck, so true
Sorry but Wales is not a principality and hasn't been for a long time. The title Prince of Wales is only honorific and confers no constitutional or legal powers. There is no constitutional or legally recognised definition of Wales as a principality today. BTW following your own logic if there is a Duke and Duchess of Cornwall then Cornwall itself must be a Duchy no?
Cornwall may well have an individaul identity but it is an English county. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_of_the_United_Kingdom And Wales does indeed have its own parliament but it is, by definition of there being a prince of it (Prince Charles), is a principality. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principality
A few points:
Wales is not a principality. The Principality of Wales came to an end as a legally defined territory with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. From 1689 to 1948 there was no differentiation between the government of England and government in Wales. All laws relating to England included Wales and Wales was considered by the British Government as an indivisible part of England within the United Kingdom. Equally, the principality of Wales that did exist didn't cover the entire territory of the nation of Wales. The use of the term principality to refer to the territory of Wales should be distinguished from its use to refer to the title of Prince of Wales in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which has been traditionally granted to the heir apparent of the reigning monarch. It confers no responsibility for government in Wales, and has no constitutional meaning outside the peerage.
Cornwall is not just an English county. As well as being the home of the legally recognised Cornish national minority, Cornwall is also a constitutional Duchy, the Duke of Cornwall having very real constitutional powers over the whole territory of Cornwall.
Read more here:
The Laws of Cornwall: http://www.jkirkhope.co.uk/index.php?page=stannary-law
Cornwall and the Duchy: https://republic.org.uk/cornwall-and-duchy
For the record there was no temple to Minerva in Athens. The temple spoken of in this article would have been to Athena Polis. Minerva was Roman, not Greek.
"... In the long term one can never know what will happen in the Muslim states. ..."
LOL!
So true!
Wasn't this great general related to Pericles and Alcibiades?
Well David – it would depend on which Selkie myth you chose. Are you pining for one who is faithful until the end, or the usual type, who escapes to the sea with the first chance she gets? lol
An argument could be made for women in regards to the Nordic Fossgrim...a rather suave, but harmless male counterpart.
In any case, this article was treat to read!
This is really HILLARIous how a wiki-zombie accuses academics, who in his imagination represent Trump, of their incompetence. However science has to do with something more than Wikipedia and political engagement. First of all, I would advice the wiki-zombie to study Arabic and read Abu Musa Al-Hariri's "Priest and Prophet: story on origin of Islam" (قس ونبی - بحث فی نشأة الاسلام - ابو موسی الحریری) where one can find the summary about the cross-religious dialogue/connections between X-nity and S-lam. Learn about Waraka Bin Nawfal. Second, if one really likes to investigate, start with the Prophet MHMD's genealogical tree, and pay special attention to the connection of MHMD's great-great-grandfather Qusay Bin Kilab Bin Murra to the Tubba Abu Karib As'ad Kamil, Al-Kahinan, Hulail Bin Hushbiya and the shrine of Ka'aba. Third, learn some linguistics and the evolution of the Arab script, horouf and harakat. Fourth, I recommend to read Kees Versteegh's "Arabic in the Pre-Islamic Period". And finally remember A. Schopenhauer's “Clio, the muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis”.
I think I just found the same evidence you have and fully support your theory. The "Elevation Meter" is pretty hard to argue with if it is as accurate as I understand it to be from "known" Depths and Elevations. It would explain a huge amount of discoveries around it.
Who did the Jews worship before YHWH ??? very curious
I may have found it while chasing down other Stories and Locations shared here at Ancient Origins. If so then it has been right under our noses the whole time...we have just been thinking too small. The location would explain a huge number of discoveries over the last 200 years. It Truly fits the Description of Atlantis and there is "in your face" proof all over the place.
Thank you for your reply!, I agree, the refusal to recognize that everything natural does indeed cycle is a problem. There have been Five "Ice Ages" over the last 500,000 years of Mankind yet we refuse to look beyond the very last one. Man could have advanced and declined during every one of these.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html
I'm just having trouble with the overall sureness that Early Man would never try to stick his toes in the Water. Removing just this concept alone would open huge barriers in thought and discovery. I am very sure that many very early Symbols do indeed share Round Earth and Seafaring knowledge.
But because if the Firewall Mental Block the theories are tossed to the side and never investigated further. Why is the "What if they could?" form of investigation so Radical and Irrational? The theory that man absolutely feared water and would never touch it until only about 4,000 years ago is just as Radical and Irrational and down right lacks any Proof in Fact.
You are right...Those who have proven the Earth Round now once again view it as flat without further discussion. So without any facts to support their own sureness then it could only originate from Superstition, Blindness or Ignorance and is unfortunately a huge loss for Science...
If you contact
[email protected]
the webmaster will sort it out for you.
Hi, I registered at your website and it was approved. However, my login credentials are not recognized. There is no contact info. Can you assist me? I really would like to read the book! :)
Pages