Talk:Historic counties of England/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ooh, and there's a 3 Shires Oak Road nearby as well, west of the A4030.  Morwen - Talk 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three counties point : Staffordshire/Warwickshire/Worcestershire

message: 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)
thread_title: County pride

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Naming (2)

message: I found a list here  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: maybe, but probably should be kept separate from the map key, which could be simplified further.  Morwen - Talk 10:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. We should consider what would be useful to go into a table. MRSC 10:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Domesday names

message: "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)
replies: text: I'd say remove it; its non-essential and factually dubious. MRSC 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Detached Monmouthshire

message: How come everybody forgot to mention it?  Éponyme 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a county corporate Lozleader 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Bristol]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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