Talk:Middlesex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Status of Middlesex

The article seems to assume that Middlesex was only ever a political entity - this is highly disputed by supporters of the historic counties who will assert that the county does still exist because of things like the Cricket Club and the University (which, in the form of Middlesex Polytechnic, only got that name in 1973, after the administrative county was wound up). And many people in Middlesex still feel they are in Middlesex.

On the issue of the Post Office having Middlesex in the address - the current text rather implies that the Post Office will just deliver mail that happens to have the name Middlesex on it. The Post Office does actually recognise the existance of an area called Middlesex - mail addresses and boundaries have rarely followed local government boundaries (look at the London postal district for the obvious example). The Post Office still acknowledges the existance of Middlesex (although it doesn't follow the historic county or the post 1888 boundaries) right down to its formal list of areas - take a look at this BBC News story [1]. -- User:Timrollpickering

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). The approach taken here is supported by the vast majority of wikipedia users; the only objections coming from 2 users who are obsessed otherwise. Certainly we could add more mention of the people who believe that Middlesex still exists as a county, rather than a placename. Morwen 11:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
How does that look? Morwen 11:22, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Looks good. I've changed the word "district" to "area" as district implies a more localised area, and also added a note on the term "Middlesex Bank" for a bank of the Thames. Timrollpickering 13:06, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
As someone just coming to this issue, I find the whole "We've decided, no if's and's or but's" and everyone else is "obsessed" unhelpful and not consistent with NPOV, especially when the articles being amended actually conflict with advice given on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), e.g. "Middlesex was a county" is specifically given as an example of what not to write. Keep it NPOV, and mention both "traditional/historic county" and "administrative county" as existing entities. Andrew Yong 14:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If Middlesex has ceased to exist, please give a reference to the legal instrument that dissolved it! LoopZilla 11:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't it already explain that in the article? G-Man 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I have no objection to historical or traditional counties being mentioned in Wikipedia articles, we should certainly abide by the policies and conventions. If these are faulty in some way they need to be changed through discussion (and if necessary a vote), but just ignoring them goes against the whole spirit of Wikipedia.
Some of the arguments offered above are flimsy. Legal instruments are not always needed for something to fall out of use, changes in customary use play a large part; and asserting that a county exists because a cricket club or university uses the name is unwise. It certainly contributes some evidence, but there are many businesses, clubs, and a museum using the name 'Corinium', does this mean that 'Corinium' is still the correct name for the modern town of Cirencester? No, it takes much more than limited use of a name to show that a town or a county exists in 2005.
Wikipedia needs an article on Middlesex, of course. But it really should describe the county's history including the facts that it is no longer widely used for official government purposes, in local government, or in modern maps (eg Ordnance Survey). The article can also include the fact that the name is still used by certain businesses and organisations. (Whoops, forgot to sign earlier - sorry) Chris Jefferies ??:??, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The real problem is the definition of the term "county" which is not universal in the UK. Some use it to mean the area administered by the county council, some mean the relevant line on the postal address, some mean the traditional area name and so forth. I'm not sure Wikipedia is truly consistent - some parts of the UK are treated as though the counties exist, despite the move to unitary authorities, others are much more fragmented. I suspect this may need a rethink. Timrollpickering 12:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, that's absolutely right. The problem is made much worse because, although a policy on county names was agreed, not everyone follows it. If we want to be consistent (and we all should want that) we must follow policy or, as I mentioned, improve it and then follow it.
Unfortunately, despite long debates and even an RfC, we have still failed to agree. In a nutshell, existing policy is that we should have a single article for each county, and that article should cover all aspects including the county's history, boundary changes, geography etc. I believe this would work well if we all followed it, the articles should explain the confusing situation and the fact that people hold differing views. As there's no administrative county of Middlesex it should be slightly easier than some of the others. Chris Jefferies 18:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to move

I've made a proposal to move this to Middlesex - based on the number of links meant for this article that are actually pointing at Middlesex (see Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middlesex ), it's historical precedence and the precedence of choosing the English county for the articles at Essex, Sussex, Norfolk etc.. Jooler

The discussion for this page move may be found at Talk:Middlesex/page move. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cumberland

As far as I can see, only two of the Traditional counties of England are not at an undisambiguated [[county name]] - Middlesex, England and Cumberland, England. Is the argument for main article disambiguation of Cumberland any better than it is for Middlesex? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say that Cumberland, too should be at the undisambiguated location. john k 19:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Former postal county?

The article STILL says Middlesex is a former postal county. There is nothing former about it; I LIVE in Middlesex, and it does very much still exist. Not just in people's minds (subjectively true), but in postal reality (objectively true). Someone please edit this. 22nd November 2005 BryanAJParry

It is still a traditional county — that is indisputable. It does still exist, but ALL postal counties of the United Kingdom are "former postal counties" because the Royal Mail (who invented them) have stopped using them. Owain 13:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that 'former postal county' is the language now used by Royal Mail to refer to them. As they invented them they are perfectly within their rights to rename them. Mrsteviec 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The point is the implication is that letters sent to such-and-such a place, Middlesex, will not get where they are going. This is not true. 82.44.212.6 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Bryan
Postal counties were always a mess and I'm glad that we're shot of them! I have however clarified that Middlesex can be used on Middlesex addresses with the Royal Mail's blessing. Owain (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So, if Middlesex does not exist, when (and by which legal instrument) was it abolished? Gordo 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piracy

At the time, piracy and smuggling were, formally speaking, committed "on the high seas in the county of Middlesex".)

Did Middlesex have some legal particularity then?

Yes. It was the place where the King's Bench happened to be sitting for much of the time. Hence the use of the Bill of Middlesex and so on. Strictly, the King's Bench was moveable court and the Common Pleas fixed. Though, by 1300, they both sat in the same room on a regular basis. Francis Davey 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parishes

Anyone object to adding parishes of middlesex? Is very usefull information to family historians. NSWelshman 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The "division into hundreds" section is mostly based on parishes of the ancient county. Here is the full list: [2] Mrsteviec 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postal county map

Could we have a map of the postal county area? I am having difficulty visualising based on other maps how it could have been two disconnected units - this would imply that the London postal district touched the Buckinghamshire or Hertfordshire postal county at some point? Morwen - Talk 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The N postal area does touch postal Hertfordshire at Barnet. So we have a small exclave (EN 1-3) which is Enfield, then EN 4-6 which is Barnet and Potters Bar, Herts, separating Enfield from the HA area.Lozleader 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that kind of makes sense. I was somehow expecting the parts to be of roughly equal size. Morwen - Talk 17:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, note "Potters Bar, Herts" - according to the article in The Times I quoted on former postal counties, this was changed from Middlesex to Herts in 1965 (but Staines and Sunbury weren't changed to Surrey). Morwen - Talk 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This map may help: [3] Mrsteviec 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County town

Does anyone have anything more than "London Brentford" for this? It would be good to add a citation as I have seen various claims as to the historic county town. Mrsteviec 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in 1831, according to Samuel Lewis's Topographical Dictionary of England...
  • "the parliamentary elections for the county take place at New Brentford, it being the county town"
  • The quarter-sessions house was on Clerkenwell Green
  • The county assizes were held at the Old Bailey

Later on the county council was based in Westminster!

Lozleader 08:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh and the 1911 Brittania sys: "Brentford has been the county-town for elections since 1701".
Lozleader 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And here's another one:
The elections for the county of Middlesex are held at Brentford, for which reason it is considered as the county-town; but there is no town-hall or other public building.
From The Environs of London: volume 2: County of Middlesex (1795)[4]
And:
Despite Brentford's antiquity, there were no substantial grounds for the claim that it was the county town, first made in 1789: the county court had sometimes sat there, as in 1378 and 1608, and Middlesex's parliamentary elections took place there in the 18th and 19th centuries
A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 7 [5]
Lozleader 08:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on these I think I'll remove London for certain. I have seen Westminster and Clerkenwell cited as the county town (I forget where). Brentford is most often cited but it is also disputed. Perhaps the county town should be removed altogether for this one? Any thoughts? Or perhaps the various claims could be summarised in the article and the infobox could then read: "see text". Mrsteviec 09:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just typing almost exactly that when I got an conflict with your edit! Yes, I think that's a good way to proceed. "No established county town -See Text?"Lozleader 09:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you write the text summarising the claims? I am not as familiar with them as I think you are. Mrsteviec 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll put it on the todo quite soon list! Lozleader 10:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesex Day

I've been trying to find out if Middlesex Day is in fact celebrated and by whom? The only hits in Google are all derived from this article, and there is no sign in the online newspaper databases. Anybody know anything? Lozleader 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have just found this [6] unattributed piece on a cricket league's site. Although it is not dated, 1811 + 191 years makes 2006. However the regimental museum referred to at Bruce Castle closed in 1992, so I can't quite figure this out??? Oddly enough there is no mention of the day at [7] or [8] which seem to be approved by Russell Grant, who founded the Middlesex Family Foundation at Middlesex on May 16th 2006, Lozleader 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable coverage other than the EDM, which is vague itself as to the significance. MRSC • Talk 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So should it be removed or just rewritten? Lozleader 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If I do a search on the ProQuest newspaper database for 'Middlesex Day' and ignore those including 'cricket' I get zero results. I get the feeling this was something informal decided by someone associated with the cricket team or some military group and the EDM was designed to try and gain wider appeal. I suppose we could go down to Brentford or Westminster Guidhall on 16 May and see if the bunting is out, then we will know if it is 'celebrated'. Seriously, it probably needs to be edited to say no more than is contained in the EDM as that is the only reliable source. MRSC • Talk 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had already done a similar search, and as you say all cricket! Lozleader 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/d/Talk%7EMiddlesex_7621.html"