Talk:Ceremonial counties of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Traditional = Ceremonial ? 2 Hunts 3 Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? 4 High Sheriff? 5 Page move 6 Boroughs 7 Interactivity 8 Geographic counties

[edit] Traditional = Ceremonial ?

Do we know for certain that the change took place along with the introduction of county councils? I left that obscure deliberately, because my source doesn't state either way. Morwen 16:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Isn't a ceremonial county of England the same as a Traditional County? Is this a double entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_counties_of_the_British_Isles

-Simon Brunger

No, a ceremonial county is an area defined for the appointment of Lord Lieutenants which is based on combinations of local government areas. A traditional county is an area that is independent of local government. They used to be the same, but since the introduction of modern local government in 1889 the ceremonial areas have been based on local government areas rather than directly on the traditional counties. Despite having similar names, in some cases the areas are radically different. Also some ceremonial counties are not based on traditional counties at all, such as Greater Manchester, and some traditional counties are not ceremonial counties, such as Huntingdonshire. Owain 09:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hunts

I sent an email to the Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire's office and got this reply

Dear Abigail

Thank you for your enquiry. I have had a look at my lists and confirm that

there was a Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire from 1660. The position finished

with the amalgamation of the Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council with

the Cambridge and Isle of Ely County Council in 1974.

Lord de Ramsey was the Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire 1947 - 1968 and Lord

Hemingford from 1968 - 1974.

Morwen - Talk 18:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dispute the inclusion of Cornwall as a ceremonial county of England. Cornwall is not a ceremonial county of England, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is in fact a Duchy please see the Cornish time line provided by Cornwall 'County' Council [[1]] Also please visit the website of the Cornish Stannery Parliament [[2]]. There are plenty of documents to indicate that all of Cornwall is a Duchy and that the Duchy of Cornwall constitutionally does not equate to the Dukes estates. Ceremonially the Queen takes the role of a visiting head of state when in Cornwall and the Duke takes the role of Head of State. This applies to anywhere in Cornwall not just on the Duchy estates. When a swan or sturgeon are caught in Cornwall they are ceremonially presented to the Duke of Cornwall not the Queen.

1855-58 The legal arguments of Sir George Harrison, Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall, defeat the Crown's aspirations of sovereignty of the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy that Cornwall argues the Duke has sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown.

1856 On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merley by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall. Thenceforth mineral rights above the Low Water Mark belonged to the Duchy and below it to the Crown.

1863 The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirms that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king.

1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall - official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position.

1974 Reform of Cornish Stannary Parliament

1977 The Stannators right to veto Westminster legislation is confirmed by Parliament.

2001 (April) A sturgeon is caught off Cadgwith and is offered to the Duke of Cornwall. When landed in other parts of Britain the fish is customarily offered to the monarch.

In contrast to every English and Welsh county the High Sheriff of Cornwall is appointed by the Duke of Cornwall not by the Crown. For reference see page 72 of Cornwall a history by Philip Payton of Exeter university.

I have added a short note in the history section which points out the fact that in Cornwall can be found many people who disagree with its English county status, Cornwall is the only 'county' like this and is worth noting. Fulub le Breton 7/2/05

[edit] Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

Added the following link

• Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border

Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High Sheriff?

I have attempted to bring the High Sheriff article up to some kind of reasonable standard and am having trouble traking down the areas they cover. I assume that there is a High Sheriff for each ceremonial county but, according to the list here there is one High Sheriff for Herefordshire & Worcestershire but according to this article these are two counties, which makes me doubt my assumption. Is this page out of date? Have the ceremonial counties been changed? Do High Sheriffs and Lord-Lieutenants cover different areas? Any sugestions would be most helpful. Andreww 04:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. You will see here there are two offices, of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, which just happen to be occupied by the same chap. Morwen - Talk 08:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And they are planning for the same system next year. How odd. Anyway I have taken the cowards solution and pointed the county link on High Sheriff to this article. Thanks. Andreww 09:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

What on earth is going on here? I can think of no reason for this article to be moved from Ceremonial counties of England. I recommend a speedy revert. Mrsteviec 19:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boroughs

Who changed my title from Boroughs of England? "Borough" is the more official and used term. The 47 boroughs are the most basic equivalent to provincial government in England. SuperWikiman 09:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No it is not. A borough is something else entirely. What is your source? Mrsteviec 14:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your title? I changed it back to what it should be (and what it was before you mischievously changed it in the first place). You are probably aware that this is all available in the history. Owain 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed nonsense on stilts. The claim probably comes from the CIA claim that England has, amongst other entities, "47 boroughs" on their World Factbook, but these are not the same as the entities listed here. [3] (their 47 "boroughs" are the metropolitan boroughs without city status and some unitary authorities with borough status, they make no attempt to ditinguish things by function, only by name) Morwen - Talk 14:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I give in; I've obviously stepped in a rattler's nest. Seeing how you're all British yourselves I'll assume you know this stuff more than I do; and a rose of a different color is still a rose. I am impressed on your great contributions and barnstars and am lucky to have met you all. Perhaps we can work on something together?(PS May Christ have mercy on your soul, Morwen). SuperWikiman 15:34, 13 December 2005(UTC)

Now now, no need to be rude. Morwen - Talk 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, it's just that Christianity teaches that the lost need to be reached and saved; and I'm a devout Christian(but in NO WAY a fundie or a member of the Religious Right)and liberal and just stating the faith. SuperWikiman 08:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that's nice, but I strongly object to people praying for me, and suchforth, as I'm sure you would if someone interceded to Satan on your behalf. Please don't do it (certainly not where I can see it). Morwen - Talk 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1)It's not a fair comparison, God and the Devil, in any religious sense; since God is good in Christianity and other religions, where Satan is only "good" in Satanism, a cult;

2)I will keep my prayers as part of my freedom of religion but will respct your wishes and not post them;

3)Back to my original proposal to all you three great Wikipedians: is it possible for us to work on an article together? I am quite an Anglophile and know a thing or too myself, but could learn a great deal from and with you all. SuperWikiman 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interactivity

Can anyone/is is possible to make the map interactive, so you click on a county and it comes up witht he article? If so, this should be done. Benjaminstewart05 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes, it is possible - the only other map like this I've seen on WP is at the article for the upcoming World Cup, but it's certainly a proof of concept, and the code for the image is easily adaptable. If you want more advice on making such a map, drop a line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, which is frequented by several helpful and knowledgeable mapmakers. Good luck! Aquilina 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic counties

So, what sort of sourcing would be needed for this claim to be kept in? I can come up with many references from government and official sites using such a terminology. As an example [4] has Yvette Cooper noting that "The geographical county of Lancashire is made up of 12 district authorities and 2 unitary authorities". And conveniently now Encyclopedia Britannica is unacceptable as a source. This removal of valid, verifiable information because certain editors happen to disagree with is rather worrying.

• [5] says Peterborough is in the "geographic county" of Cambridgeshire
• [6] says the Hampshire Fire and Rescue service operates in the "geographic county of Hampshire". they cover Hampshire including Portsmouth and Southampton, but not Bournemouth or the Isle of Wight.

Morwen - Talk 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You objected to the use of EB on the Lancashire article when it didn't fit your POV ie. referring to Cumbria as an administrative county. You can't it both ways I'm afraid. All of the above uses are by government. The fact that that the gov uses a particular geographic framework doesn't obligate anyone else to do the same, and many in fact choose to use a different one. See your own talk page for the relevant quote. Lancsalot 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I raised concerns about the usage of Encyclopedia Britannica, in quite a qualified way. Did I say it was never acceptable as a source? No. Again, with the strawmen.

The fact remains that the government and many local authorities use this terminology. You removed the entire sentence apparently merely because you dislike this fact. The sentence didn't say that the usage was good, or correct. The sentence was

"They are also often used in a geographic reference frame, and in this capacity are sometimes called geographic counties.[7] "

It's not even saying they are geographical counties, it is just saying they are sometimes called that. Could that statement be even weaker? If this is so unacceptable to you, please suggest alternate wording. With this, and other recent edits of yours, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to accept that your edits are being made in good faith. Morwen - Talk 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)