Talk:Historic counties of England/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Just not cricket

So, do we have any evidence that cricket uses the "historic counties" as defined by the ABC, as opposed to a more wishy-washy definition. I note that Yorkshire County Cricket Club whilst supposedly taking this definition, has nontheless regularly played home games outside "historic Yorkshire", at Dore (once in Derbyshire). Morwen - Talk 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They wanted a ground which was convenient for the Yorkshire city of Sheffield and picked a Sheffield suburb just outside the historic borders. This is a rather thin basis for claiming that cricket doesn't use traditional counties. When there are teams for Merseyside, West Midlands etc you might have a point. But you're right it's not just cricket - football and rugby league also use traditional counties. Lancsalot 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for assertion? If true, that would be the "more wishy-washy" definition, ie not getting anal about acres here and there. If county cricket is to be invoked in support of the hardline revisionist historic counties movement, we need evidence of that. All the evidence I've seen though is in favour of a more wishy-washy position.

By the way did you notice that your extlink to the FA page has "Sheffield and Hallamshire" as a county? There's also a "Birmingham County Football Association" which appears to cover most of the counties of Warwickshire and West Midlands and some surrounding area. Morwen - Talk 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC seem to be unsure of it all with Middlesex representing all of Greater London north of the Thames and Warwickshire less Coventry/Birmingham: [1] Assuming the map was properly researched, perhaps they could not find an authorative source either. MRSC 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That map is a bit of a joke! Yet another example of county confusion. Lancsalot 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardline revisionist movement? I think that's slightly OTT. County cricket disproves your assertion that traditional counties are no longer current. As for the FA, I know they have branches covering some cities, but they also have Cumberland, Westmorland, Middlesex and Huntingdonshire branches despite your claims that these counties no longer exist. Lancsalot 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, hardline historical revisionist movement. There is no evidence I've seen that anyone was claiming "Caversham is still in Oxfordshire really" in the 1910s, people have come along and said that later. This is the definition of revisionism. Morwen - Talk 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lancsalot, when did anyone claim (in this discussion) that "these counties no longer exist"? Please stop being so defensive!

County Cricket teams exist for pre-1965/pre-1974 counties simply because there are clubs formed before then. Teams for West Midlands, Merseyside etc. are not going to appear, because that would require new clubs to be formed. However, County Cricket clubs are not representative teams (in the way the Australian state sides are), just clubs named after those counties. Also, they can play home matches wherever they like: for instance, Glamorgan County Cricket Club sometimes play at Colwyn Bay [2] [3] [4] (a long way from Glamorgan) and Northamptonshire sometimes play at Luton [5] [6] [7] (which of course has never has been in that county). The BBC map is rather a joke though, and should not be taken seriously, especially as some county grounds (e.g. Edgbaston) are outside the areas as shown.

County Cricket does demonstrate that the historic/traditional counties do continue to be used for some purposes. I don't think, however, that this demonstrates support among County Cricket teams for the ABC's agenda, whether one regards this as "hard line" or otherwise. As Morwen suggests, the use of counties by cricket teams is much more informal. --RFBailey 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Three counties point : Staffordshire/Warwickshire/Worcestershire

Does anyone know where the historic three counties point between Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire is? By the fact that Birmingham is the only district to include parts of all three historic counties, I imagine it is within Birmingham, although it might be on the Birmingham/Sandwell border? Morwen - Talk 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I always heard that the Edgbaston cricket ground lay athwart these three counties, but have never found a map on a large enough scale to confirm it. TharkunColl 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly close. the ABC's gazetter claims the Edgbaston is in Warwickshire, Harbourne is in Staffordshire and Bournbrook and Selly Oak are in Worcestershire, which puts it in that triangle. I've tried old-maps.co.uk but it's not terribly useful regarding edges of counties. Morwen - Talk 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, and there's a 3 Shires Oak Road nearby as well, west of the A4030. Morwen - Talk 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Letters to the editor (attitudes to historic and new counties)

I've been trawling the letters page of the Times for 1971 - 1974. some interesting bits:

• August 12, 1971: Colonel Peter Fleming of Nettlebed, Oxon invoked the 2nd clause of The Atlantic Charter that "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned" would be carried out to oppose the transfer of South Oxfordshire (Henley area) to Berkshire.

• August 17, 1971

A J Mates of Henley-on-Thames replied to Colonel Fleming's letter:

"If the differences between having to live in Oxfordshire and Berkshire were as great as those having to live, say, in the neighbouring countries of Russia and Finland or the neighbouring counties of Fermanagh and Monaghan, one would see the point, but happily no such fundamental differences exist. Caversham on "our" side of the river seems quite happy to function as part of the present County Borough of Reading."...

...A "good" Berkshire would be better than a "bad" Oxfordshire and vice versa. Certainly there is room for local pride, but it can be wide enough to include both banks of the Thames- just as London Pride does.

• November 16, 1971

Sir Eric Bethoud, of Little Horkesley, near Colchester protested against transfer of "not only the important port of Harwich, but Colchester, the pearl in the Essex Crown since the time of the Kings of Essex and the oldest recorded town in Britain..." He cited "a number of European countries... which relapsed into dictatorships of the most brutal kind…due to ... a marked drop in public respect for parliament and all democratic institutions and a serious decline in public morale." and added "A marriage is so much better than a rape".

On the same letters page:

Rear-Admiral R A Currie of Bury St Edmunds supported the moving of the Essex/ Suffolk boundary:

"The river, flowing close to the south and west of the town of Sudbury , provided, in more turbulent days, a splendid obstacle when aggressive neighbours sought to approach the town. Currently the existing county boundary along the river forms an equally effective obstacle for the rural population to the south and west who might want to make use of the local government services in the town. While these villagers may shop conveniently in Sudbury, a visit to their police inspector, the county library, the health clinic or social service office requires a long and inconvenient journey in the opposite direction to an unfamiliar town in their own county. The right place for a county or district boundary is along the 'watershed' – to use a brief but descriptive term – between shopping towns. The recent local government Bill does much to implement this view but there remain stupidities such as here described."

May 19, 1973

From Professor R B Pugh, the Editor of the Victoria County History of the Counties of England:

"May I, as one whose life is lived among historic boundaries, offer a few preliminary comments? First it must be admitted that the present counties like the future ones are and have been primarily administrative and have been held together by the administrative organs. In course of time, however, they have created long-standing loyalties and have become the framework for charitable, cultural, and athletic enterprises. Statute cannot wipe out their names nor the memory of their boundaries..."

"It seems that the Post Office has accepted this fact and does not intend to use the new county names as addresses..."

"...its practice would, at least for some years to come, reduce confusion and ease the interpretation of the past to the present and of Britain to the world. Surely it would be long before "Abingdon, Oxfordshire" and "Bournemouth, Dorset" will seem other than solecisms?"

22 May, 1973

Alec Clifton-Taylor, London SW7

"Sir, Professor Pugh’s letter (May 19) brings into focus the very serious problem of what course should be followed by those whose work is concerned with local aspects of the English scene. At present a vast corpus of topographical and other literature is based on traditional county boundaries, and most of these books will certainly continue to be used for many years to come. Based on administrative convenience, the changes which are to become effective next April have been made without regard for history, and it seems likely only a new generation will be able to accept them as normal."

"Meanwhile what? Would it not be more sensible and less confusing for writers and others to retain the traditional classification, at least for some time to come? I for one would value the advice of your readers."

May 24 1973

Anthony Fletcher, Department of Medieval and Modern History, University of Sheffield wrote:

"Sir, Professor Pugh and Mr Clifton-Taylor (May 19,22) are right. The present generation cannot be expected to forget the traditional boundaries, nor should it be encouraged to do so. Many who regularly travel across England are now reminded of the pattern of counties by the signs erected by county councils have erected on the roads. It would be a pity if all indication of these boundaries were lost next year, where the old county and new administrative boundaries no longer coincide. The traditional county boundaries will remain alive in numerous books about local society. So it would be appropriate if the new local authorities were to replace the present signs, where necessary, with anew type of sign indicating ancient counties’ boundaries which no longer have administrative effect. These signs would become historical landmarks, and they should be properly recorded on the ground."

May 30, 1973

From Stuart Manners, Haileybury, Hertford

"Sir, I do not wish to argue for or against the introduction of the new county boundaries, but given that they are to be introduced next year, then the sooner the new words and changes are accepted, the quicker they will come to fulfil their proper administrative purpose."

"The 'long-standing loyalties and have become the framework for charitable, cultural, and athletic enterprises' created by counties in the past and referred to by Professor Pugh (May 19) can surely be transferred to the new divisions. Furthermore, it will only serve to confuse for a much longer period if both old and new names are allowed to remain in use. How can the same place be allowed to reside in two different counties and what value can be served in keeping outmoded names?"

"As the change of county boundaries has been recommended in order to provide a more efficient and effective administration then let us accept this development and try to understand the new geographical nomenclature as soon as possible."

"We have recently had a good example of change with decimalization of money. In this process it has been shown that change can take place and life-long habits can be altered for the benefit of all. Today the most anachronistic coin in common usage is the old sixpence, which illustrates how the mixing of old and new ideas serves only to add greater confusion."

Vale of White Horse

On June 5 1974, Jacquetta Hawkes of Warwickshire, claimed that 10,000 signatures had been added to a petition to keep what she called the "Berkshire White Horse" in that county. Apparently this would have involved a minor boundary change removing the horse from the parish of Uffington, Vale of White Horse district and county of Oxfordshire, and transferring it to the adjoining parish in Berkshire. The return of the district to Berkshire was not countenanced.

On June 24 Airey Neave, the MP for Abingdon replied pointing out that the Uffington White Horse at 2000 years old predates county boundaries. He also stated that it didn't "belong" to Berkshire or Oxfordshire but to the nation. Many of his constituents continued to feel they were Berkshire people, but they would 'violently resent the removal of the horse' from Uffington and from the Vale district. He also pointed out that the horse was completely invisible from any part of the new county of Berkshire, wheras it could be seen from 50 villages in Oxon. He ended by asking: 'May I suggest that Miss Hawkes now turn her attention to excavating the ancient Red Horse of Warwickshire?' "

On July 5 1974 the chairman of the Vale of White Horse District Council reiterated Neave's points about the horse predating any county boundaries, and that it overlooked the Vale of Ufffington, but could not be seen from Berkshire. Describing the inhabitants of the district as Berkshire men who had gone with the Vale to Oxfordshire, they considered that the White horse belongs in that area, and added that other Berkshire men could rightly consider it part of their particular heritage, and they were all welcome to visit this national monument and "worship".

12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Nobody is talking about "traditional counties" remaining in existence in the kind of hardline way we see today with pseudo-legal arguments, back in 1974. (indeed, even the 1994 Lancashire petition is not consistent with this position, or many mentions of support in the House). Also there is no mention in any of these letters - or in the parts of Hansard that I checked - of the supposed government assurances. It appears "the government assured us all before 1974 that this was all just administrative" is a myth that has developed since then. (and hey, even if it had, why is Harold Wilson's government an appropriate source for the intent of legislation passed by Parliament and introduced by Edward Heath's government?)

I seem to remember there was some suggestions in the letters pages in 1974 that the Dioceses also be reformed to match the new counties! Morwen - Talk 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it isn't all an Internet Age phenomen? It's all too easy to establish a web presence for any belief/religion/cult and propogate anything. And once published in that way it can take on a "reality" of its own. Somebody once inaccurately (I'm guessing in the mid 1990s) quoted a bit from a supplement in The times, and it becomes a "Government Statement", even sneaking into the Commons. Technologies that one would expect to enlighten can do the opposite. Witness the popularity of the prophecies of Nostradamus, which though essentially content-free and meaningless, survived because he happened to coincide with the spread of the printed book. That and the fact that they can be creatively mistranslated. But I digress. Lozleader 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Stationary Office, Aspects of Britain: Local Government (1996) notes: "the county boundaries, which dated back to medieval times, were reformed. Some counties were merged - for example Herefordshire and Worcestershire - while others were split - for example Sussex. Several new counties were created from parts of existing counties - for example, Avon was created by detaching the parts of Somerset and Gloucestershire nearest Bristol from their original counties and making a new county out of them. In other areas the boundaries were adjusted - for example a large part of Berkshire was transferred to Oxfordshire." MRSC 16:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a look this morning at the journal Local government chronicle from 1971 to 1975. There were articles from several commentators on the reforms, with no mention of the boundary changes being anything other than boundary changes. Also, there was no mention of any movement to restore historic boundaries at that time. MRSC 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. I'm old enough to remember the changes and in particular the Avon/Somerset row. The argument was based on the boundaries of the counties being changed, and I have no recollection of anyone saying that they were only "administrative". A couple of encyclopedias of the 1970s I have consulted treated the changes as being for all purposes, and don't mention any "traditional boundaries not being altered" stuff. In fact the use of "former county" for places such as Westmorland was used. Which is why I was surprised to come across material in the mid 1990s saying that this was not the situation. It was news to me.Lozleader 11:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted a lot of stuff from hansard at Talk:Local Government Act 1972, none of which is consistent with the boundary changes not being considered boundary changes. at no point did the government ever reassure anyone by saying "but these are just administrative changes". Morwen - Talk 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It all seems to be pointing one way: newspaper reports, consensus of a range of academic writers over a broad period (1972-2004), parliamentary debate, the legislation itself, academic journals. MRSC 13:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I found a letter from 1977 ('County boundaries', July 30, 1997, by a JF Bailey of Henley), which was responding to an assertion that Yorkshire had been aboliton. It seems to read like a sort of proto-ABC party line, and claims that

• counties cannot be altered by statute
• denies that the 1974 boundary changes were real, and claims that 'all that happened in 1974 was that, for the purposes of administrative convenience, the boundaries of certain administrative "counties" were altered so that they were no longer in line with those of the traditional, geographic counties', further claims that the "effect of the changes is limited to certain governmental matters"
  • not the scare quotes
• there is no mention of ordnance survey, or addressing the fact that the counties before 1974 were not in fact the historic counties
• notes that major sports had ignored the changes
• it claims that the Post Office had a "total disregard for logic" in changing the postal counties
• it says there is "confusion" (a popular word in the movement today to describe disagreement with it)
• it denounces the fact that the "new administrative areas were given the same names as those of traditional counties"

This is contrary to the attitude of academics, other letter-writers, the newspaper itself, MPs, the government, and local councils at the time, who all treated the boundary changes as boundary changes, and in many cases opposed them on those grounds. As this stage the misquotation of things as government statements has not yet been introduced. Indeed this letter notes that "we do not have to believe what our masters tell us if it is patently untrue" - implying that the false claim about government statements had not been added to the mythology yet. It is kind of an outlier. I can't find any other such letters in the period the times archives covers (until 1985). Later on, in another archive, we get a letter from Russell Grant objecting to the counties people being called the "green welly brigade" in 1994 or so. Morwen - Talk 12:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and note the date! Probably a coincidence, but this was printed the day before the first news item about Yorkshire Ridings Society/Yorkshire Day was formed. Morwen - Talk 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I found that a couple of weeks ago. No sign that Mr Bailey was involved in the later "resurrectionist" movements though. Lozleader 13:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The language is suggestive, though. Oh, and I found a bunch of letters from Mr Tolstoy (later to be patron of CountyWatch) from the "from" address as "Abingdon, Berkshire" in the 1980s. Morwen - Talk 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the first point. Counties were not created by statute. They have a common law existence which cannot be altered by civil law. Lancsalot 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to participate in this debate please at least raise your standard of commentary up to the level of the other contributors, and provide at the very least a comparable range of credible sources for your rhetoric. MRSC 14:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part of what I wrote did you not understand? Lancsalot 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You made nothing more than an assertion; this has no value here. For the purposes of Wikipedia you need to provide citations from credible sources that specifically agree with each "fact". To decide on your own what is fact, without any academics also coming up with the identical idea, is original research or synthesis and is outside the scope of this project. The other commentators have gone to the trouble of seeking out suitable credible citations, from a range of sources, that all agree with each other. You, however, make nothing more than academically unsubstantiated assertions. MRSC 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that lots of things in common law have been altered by statute! The year and a day rule, to take a random example. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is generally accepted, certainly in England and Wales. Morwen - Talk 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But traditionial counties are ultra vires as your comment about Mr Tolstoy proves. Lancsalot 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, assertion without citation. You are now just using this page as a soapbox for your ridiculous and unfounded claims. MRSC 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This started as notes trying figure out when this viewpoint originated and when it became a 'movement'. Wikipedia definitely isn't the right place to put forward legal theories, and certainly isn't the place to use stock arguments paraphased from websites without any new thought involved. Morwen - Talk 16:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some kind of agreement that this disruptive editing will not continue.

I see there has been no reply so far to the various comments on other talk pages which seek to address User:Lancsalot's removal of citations, bad-faith alteration of cited material, ignoring naming conventions, marking of contentious edits as minor, causing disruption to prove a point, general incivility and personal attacks. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are there for a reason, to protect the project and other users.

The earlier discussions on this page form a comprehensive and valid attempt to resolve this dispute by gathering a wide range of credible citations. However, if an acceptance of the weight of evidence is not forthcoming from User:Lancsalot and the associated disruptive editing is to continue, I can see no other possible way out of this than official arbitration. MRSC 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. If you can't handle disagreements about article content then you really shouldn't be editing on here. The above in itself constitutes a personal attack (on top of numerous others). And only yesterday you removed cited content having previously introduced glaring factual inaccuracies. There are plenty of other examples of this but I really can't be bothered looking through the archives. Lancsalot 17:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Merely noting you have excercised very poor judgement is not a personal attack. Saying "Grow up" is. I think you have left us with no other choice than to seek arbritration against you. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, of course, that I used edit summaries to explain my edits and used talk pages to promote discussion. You, on the other hand, attempted to use edit summaries to disguise your actions and ignored talk page discussions. You clearly do not seek to resolve this amicably as your last insulting edit further proves. MRSC 17:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

County pride

There is an interesting article on p. 40 of The Economist (30/9/06) about the re-emergence of localism and county identity. It puts it down to a reaction against increasing homogenisation of English culture. It also mentions the county flags that have recently become popular. MRSC 11:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Role

The article, aside from a general copyedit, could do with a specific section dealing with the role of the counties. Many commentators note that this was somewhat limited with most functions coming from the parishes and boroughs. However, we should include:

• Militias were organised by county (in Elisabethan times)
• Justice of the Peace (county wide basis):
  • Checking local adminstration, Inspecting accounts
  • Highways and bridges
  • Weights and measures
• Assizes
• Police (1839, 1856)

Does anyone have anything further, and some start and end dates for the various functions? MRSC 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Parliamentary elections, of course Lozleader 12:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

County Gaols as well. Setting the county rate : we should be able to find a start date for that, if there was one. In modern terms, were the counties rating authorities or did they precept on the parishes/boroughs? Also, whatever the Custos rotulorum did. Morwen - Talk 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started this section now, please expand it... MRSC 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Names

Someone wrote into The Times in 1959 complaining about Hampshire County Council changing the name of the administrative county of Southampton to the administrative county of Hampshire, claiming that "County of Hampshire" is a solecism and that "County of Hants" should be preferred. Is this sort of thing usable as a source for a claim that "County of X-shire" was once regarded (by some people anyway) as bad usage, but slipped into use anyway, or should I try to find a secondary source regarding this? Morwen - Talk 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need something more general. Although you could briefly describe the letter without giving any interpretation of its wider meaning. Its up to you to decide if that will add value. MRSC 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything else that is sticking out as needing a citation? I have a range of texts and notes available but I'm starting to loose sight of what is significantly without citation. It will also not be too much trouble to find some further texts. MRSC 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's reasonably well cited now. Morwen - Talk 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trad county movement

Aside from the last section. I can find no academic commentary that mentions this movement. MRSC 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a single reference, other than on Wikipedia and its mirrors, which uses the term "traditional counties movement". It looks like a neologism. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone think of another way to phrase it? Its difficult to draw on academic commentary; as there is none. Perhaps the section should be refocussed to "Restoration of historic boundaries" and discuss the 1990s changes primarily? MRSC 17:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be the best way to go; it'd be interesting to see whether the groups in this "traditional counties movement" identify as a single movement under any particular name; if they don't, it's really original research to do more than mention the individual campaigns. Warofdreams talk 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've refocussed this section as discussed. It would be good if we can find some commentary to use as a citation. MRSC 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And was duly provided. Any areas of weakness left to focus on? I wonder if the references to legislation could be made more succinct. I feel they are perhaps described better in other articles. MRSC 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming (2)

Returning to the name thing, its worth noting that legislation frequently referred to the "County of Berks" and "County of Wilts", for instance the Local Government Act 1933. Maybe the 1959 writer had some kind of obscure point. Lozleader 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Peerages used shire-less "County of X" names until about the early 1970s, so I'd assume that they were the official names until then. If you look at the territorial designations on this list of peerages, a bit of searching reveals when things changed. Berkshire, for instance, was "the County of Berks" until 1961, when it became "the Royal County of Berks", which then became "the Royal County of Berkshire" in 1971 (where it has remained ever since). Cheshire started off as "the County Palatine of Chester", became "the County of Chester" throughout the 1910s, 20s and 30s, and then reverted back to "the County Palatine of Chester" before going the way of Berkshire and ending up as "the County of Cheshire". Most others were more simple changes ("the County of Wilts" to "the County of Wiltshire", etc.). Proteus (Talk) 13:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted that list (or rather, our abbreviated version of it), and its usage ("Caversham in the Royal County of Berkshire"). Who is responsible for drawing up these territorial designations? I suppose they are negotiated between the person involved and some representative of the Crown? Does the Queen sign (or seal I suppose) bits of paper, or what? Morwen - Talk 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't always follow any ceremonial boundaries either. Witness Baron Grenfell of Kilvey in the County of Swansea. Owain (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The choice of title and territorial designation is done though Garter King of Arms, who must approve both aspects of the title. I assume the prospective peer merely picks the place they want in the territorial designation, says which one they mean if there are more than one in different counties, and the administrative staff at the College of Arms draw up the exact format based on what they've been told and what current naming practice is. There do seem to be some random variations (until the 90s there seems to have been free variation between "in Greater London" and "in the London Borough of...", so I assume people got to choose which one of those they wanted), but in most cases it seems that what was used was pretty standard and non-negotiable. The standard format of counties with "County" in the normal name (County Durham, County Antrim, County Down, etc.), for instance, never seems to be used, and I'd imagine quite a few people from those counties would prefer that to the "County of" format, which would suggest that there isn't a great deal of choice involved. Proteus (Talk) 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Domesday names

I found a list here [8] which gives the names as they appeared in Domesday. Some interesting ones, particularly Grentebrigescire (Cambridgeshire) and of course Snotingehamscire (Nottinghamshire). Morwen - Talk 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the map key could become a table with this information forming a column and/or an "alternative name" column. Possibly a postal abbreviation column (I have these to hand). A further column could give some details of significant changes over time or what happened in 1889, 1974. Obviously we don't want information overload but it would be nice to present some information in the form of a table rather than "lost" in the text. MRSC 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

maybe, but probably should be kept separate from the map key, which could be simplified further. Morwen - Talk 10:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. We should consider what would be useful to go into a table. MRSC 10:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions:

• Alternative name: e.g. Cheshire | County of Chester
• Name in 1086: e.g. Cambridgeshire | Grentebrigescire
• Abbreviation: e.g. Oxfordshire | Oxon
• Major divisions: e.g. Yorkshire | East Riding, North Riding, West Riding
• Division types: e.g. Middlesex | hundreds
• Origin: e.g Kent | Kingdom of Kent

Anything else? MRSC 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Detached Monmouthshire

"including even a detached part of the Welsh county of Monmouthshire in Herefordshire, called Welsh Bicknor." Actually, Mon was an English county. Should we just ditch this sentence? Lozleader 19:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say remove it; its non-essential and factually dubious. MRSC 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bristol

How come everybody forgot to mention it? Éponyme 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a county corporate Lozleader 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We could probably do with a paragraph or so about these. Whilst we are on the topic, I inspected the 1921 census summaries at the BL yesterday and was rather surprised to see that that they noted that Southampton C.B. was a "county of itself". Although i grabbed out the wording of the provisional orders for Birmingham and Reading (see talk:county borough), I forgot to grab out that for Southampton: it would be interesting to see if the orders explicitly extended the county of the town of southampton to include bits being added to the county borough. Morwen - Talk 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bristol is not like other counties corporate, in that its had its own Lord Lieutenant. I think it's technically in Gloucestershire, geographically, but its situation doesn't really resemble those of the others. The only comparable entity would be the City of London. john k 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bristol doesn't appear to have been a particularly special case - apart from its position on the border - it may have had its own lieutenant at various times but didn't from 1882 to 1974 when its lieutenancy was combined by statute with that for Gloucester and Gloucestershire. if you have good sources that contradict this, that would be great. it turns out that haverfordwest had its own lieutenant until 1974, even. Morwen - Talk 17:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at 1911 Britannica, you seem to be correct. I'll note that Berwick and Haverfordwest are therein described as "counties in themselves," while Bristol is a "county of a city." Is this a distinction without a difference? john k 17:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. There seems to have been no fixed terminology: you get "county of the city of bristol" and "city and county of bristol", "county of the town of southampton". the term "county corporate" itself doesn't appear in the times archive much, although it does appear often enough i'm satisfied it's not a post-1974 invention. Morwen - Talk 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So then...would that make the county status of Bristol similar to the elevation of Hull to Hullshire? They are really peculiarities within a shire? As to the position of Bristol, I am not confident that Gloucestershire is right. Somerset, I have been told, was the shire Bristol splintered from. In America, there are two Bristol counties side by side in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. On each side of the state border, there are Somerset names like: Bridgewater, Taunton (county seat) and Bristol of course. Any colonial names from Gloucester are further off, although the West Country toponyms are quite common and spread out (e.g. Weymouth, Plymouth and Dorchester). Éponyme 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bristol started on the north bank of the Avon, in Gloucestershire - it however included parts south of the river, on the Somerset side, I'm not sure from when - I can check. Early 20th century maps tend to show all of the city as part of Gloucestershire. With regard to settlement patterns, bear in mind Bristol was a major port through which many of the colonists would have gone through (that and Plymouth). Morwen - Talk 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Government statements

There are two quotes provided in the main text of the article. They are under the subtitle of "Government statements" - one is from The Times regarding an annonymous official's (of unknown significance)opinion, the other is part of a debate in the House of Commons from a junior Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

I'm inclined to think these are not government statements of national and international significance! Thus I believe the title should be renamed; possibly to just "Statements" or "Quotes". Thoughts? Jhamez84 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're not government statements at all; the section heading remains from a time when these were presented as official government statements. Further research uncovered that they weren't. Lozleader 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but thought I ought to test the water first, so to speak. Given their obscure origins, do we believe they are actually helpful to the reader in anyway? If not I think they should be removed. Failing that, I think a title change is needed, and it may be more helpful to state that certain sects of the society wrongly assert that they are official policy/government statements. Jhamez84 16:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove them, but then I would expect them to be reinserted as "government statements" without citations (again).Lozleader 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Or even incorrect/false citations! I'd ideally like to hear from more editors about this before any action is taken. I know I certainly don't like the quotes in their current state, but what to do with them.... Jhamez84 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Either remove or possibly move to Association of British Counties (with a better section title). MRSC 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be a shame to remove the only accurate copy of that quote on the interweb. I doubt we should say that people have been misquoting it on actual articles: whilst our research provides good indication as to the credibility of certain sources, it's not really citeable itself. Morwen - Talk 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my thinking. It is probably more relevant to the ABC article and would provide some context to those claims. MRSC 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage relating to London postal districts

I thought it would be interesting to see how this statement stood up:

"Uxbridge, Middlesex or Bromley, Kent (which are outside of the London postal district), but much less so to speak of Brixton, Surrey or West Ham, Essex (which are inside it)."

Googling gave 428,000 hits for "Uxbridge-Middlesex" and 745,000 for "Bromley-Kent", but a mere 577 for "Brixton-Surrey" and 984 for "West-Ham-Essex". Quite a remarkable correlation! But Wimbledon, despite lying inside the London postal district, had 10,400 hits for "Wimbledon-Surrey". "Wimbledon-London" is much more common, but it seems that in one suburb at least, the changes of 1888 haven't been fully accepted. Warofdreams talk 23:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Although part of the postal district, Wimbledon was not included in the 1889 County of London; it remained in Surrey until 1965. In fact there are parts of all five counties that were in the postal district but not included until 1965: Ealing, Middx; Leyton, Essex; Totteridge, Herts and Penge, Kent. (I wonder where Penge residents "felt" they were as they only became part of Kent in 1899.) MRSC 14:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah - thanks for the information. In the cases of Ealing and Wimbledon, then, there seems to still be some attachment to the old counties, but not in the cases of Leyton and Totteridge. It looks as though the London postal district was a strong factor, but the key thing for an area to feel part of London is to have been part of the 1889 changes. Warofdreams talk 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As a very unscientific test, I asked two relatives born in Poplar in 1917 and 1943 if they thought West Ham (which is just on the other side of the Lee) had ever been in Essex. Both emphatically said no. The relative born in 1943 was certain it never had been. But my relative born in 1917 then remembered her brother had moved from Poplar to Green Street in the 1930s and only discovered after they moved that the area was 'technically' in Essex.

I think the East Ham/West Ham/Leyton area had legitimacy as part of London because of being in the postal district, its close proximity to the City (at least closer than Woolwich in the County of London) and because it was heavily built upon. Looking at a map of the County of London, you can see the area cut out east of Poplar and north of Greenwich/Woolwich. As to why this area was excluded I would imagine that in 1888 it was thought county borough status for West Ham would solve the problem of having the area administered by Essex CC. For Leyton (population in 1901 = 98,912), Walthamstow (95,131) and East Ham (96,008) cutting the area off from Essex CC would have removed its most populated districts and therefore source of revenue. MRSC 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)