Talk:Historic counties of England/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is altogether too uncritical of the Association of British Counties' views. Historic and Administrative counties have been diverging since as long ago as 1888 (creation of the County of London, various boundary changes).

ABC's views are entirely consistent. They adhere to the historic Counties - not administrative areas, whether created in the 19th century or in 1974. Middlesex didn't change when the administrative county of London was created in 1888, just as it didn't change when the administrative county of greater london was created in the 60s. Nor did historic boundaries change in 1844 with the detatched parts act, which mearly changes administrative boundaries. Real changes to historic boundaries have not taken place for hundreds (in some cases thousands) of years. 80.255 03:05, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Name an instance where these so-called 'real' boundaries changed, and you accept both the situation before and that change as legitimate. Morwen 09:19, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... For example, I accept that, as of 1133, Carlisle ceased to be part of Durham. Having said that, that change was actually returned the County to its more ancient form, being based on the kingdom of Deira since the 6th century. In any case I happily accept this change and I wouldn't dream of changing the article on Carlisle to claim that it is actually in Durham. Carlisle is in the historic County of Cumberland, however, and that is current, correct information. 80.255 10:24, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok. So, what authority made that change, and would you have accepted that the 'real' county boundaries changed if the government with legislation did so again (without the disclaimer)? Morwen 12:08, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
As I said, this change reverted county durham back to its original form; however, whether it was technically a County before the change to include Carlisle occured is debatable (it's very closely linked to the boundaries of the See). Therefore, if I chose to accept it as a County prior to this change, I accept its restoration to the former (and more geographically and historically correct) boundaries in 1133. The fact that this area (post 1133 Durham) has been a homogenous cultural area since before the 6th century is also a factor - such areas were not merely calculated by Beaurocrats, they organically grew through influences unique to the region in question, into their best possible form. That is why they have endured for thousands of years! Otherwise the first king to unite england may as well have split up the country into perfect 50 mile squares! Why wasn't that done? For the same reason that a surgeon performing a heart transplant doesn't simply remove a 6-inch cube of flesh from the donor and 'slot' it into a coresponding hole in the recipient! The Counties are the product of Humanity and Geography; they do not "change" simply to suit a beaurocrat with a political agenda. 80.255 04:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's too bad you don't understand that humanity and geography have changed and that what was appropriate a thousand years ago isn't necessarily useful today. A question: do you also reject post-1888 city charters and claim that they are just 'administrative cities' or some such? If not, why not? Morwen 09:11, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Borough and City corporations have always been the basic building blocks of local administration, both before and after 1888. The fact that an extra layer was inserted above them makes no difference. The difference is that everybody knew what counties the pre-1888 boroughs and cities were in. Creating an extra layer and then associating it with already widely-known units was a useful idea, but what recent reorganisations have shown us is that there is a return to the pre-1888 scenario where 'unitary' borough and city administrations are re-appearing. If this was to happen universally then people would have to accept that the counties are geographical and independent of administration, just as they had for centuries prior to 1888. Owain Vaughan 11:05, 4 Nov 2003



There are several pieces of legislation before 1888, such as the Counties (Detached Parts) Acts, but such acts allowed for places to be thought of as in the detached part or in the 'host' county - simple tidying-up exercises. There were no wholesale changes, and why would there be? These areas were (and hopefully still are) widely understood - Owain Vaughan 8:30, Oct 27, 2003

Why does the top of the article say it is about traditional counties but the middle say that what is discussed above are modern ones? Rmhermen 01:25, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

The article does seem to be in two minds over whether it is about the historic counties or the administrative counties of the late 60s/early 70s. A step forward would be to replace the current map with one which actually shows the counties pre-1888. Since that's a lot of work I've changed the wording on the piece of text immediately before it instead. -- Derek Ross

The problem is, in pages referring to historic counties you have to mention administrative areas otherwise people jump to the wrong conclusions and occasionally modify them saying things like '(since abolished)' or other such misunderstandings -- Owain Vaughan
One such person who is deliberately entering such false information is User:Pigsonthewing. He has consistently changed many of my correct edits to display manifestly false information about "former" Counties - I suggest you keep an eye on him if you value the truth! 80.255 04:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well the map's definitely better now. It no longer shows London or the Isle of Wight as separate counties. However it still combines Ross-shire with Cromartyshire even if the label no longer says Ross and Cromarty. I understand why this has been done but I still think that the total removal of a county from the map is a bit drastic even if it is fragmentary. So we're getting there but we're still not there yet. Some of the names ay need working on as well. For instance I'm fairly sure that Angus was only so named officially in the 1920s. Before that it was always officially Forfarshire even though I have no doubt that Angus was also used unofficially. This is parallel with Kincardineshire which is unofficially known as "The Mearns". -- Derek Ross

Cromartyshire consists of many small fragments and as such would be rather difficult to show on a map of that scale. On the question of names - there are several variants for some Counties - e.g. Devon and Devonshire; both are correct and equally valid; I would imagine the same is true for Angus/Forfarshire. I would expect that the administrative county of Forfarshire became known officially as Angus in the 1920s - if both were valid names for the historic County before that time then such a change would make no difference. Since the givernment at that time was certainly using administrative counties (defined in 1888), not Historic counties, for administration purposes, I think it would be very doubtful that any name-change would have affected the historic Counties. 80.255 04:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming the 1888 legislation didn't actually define entities known as 'administrative counties' and this term was first used in legislation in 1974? And that the 1974 legislation may well have purported not to amend your precious historic counties, but the 1888 legislation certainly did try to? Also, where does the term 'geographic county'/'lord lieutenancy area' come from? Is this a made-up term by the historic county geeks as something to call the 1888-1974 counties, or what? Morwen 09:01, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The 1888 Act did actually coin the phrases 'administrative county' and 'county borough'. One of the many problems with the 1974 Act is that it actually omitted the word 'administrative' despite the fact that it was local government legislation referring to the 'administrative counties'. The 1888 Act specifically did not try to amend the historic counties otherwise there would be no need for the 'administrative' prefix. Indeed the first few census returns after 1888 gave figures for both the administrative and real counties where their areas diverged. The whole 'Lord Lieutenancy area' debacle is a half-hearted attempt by the governemnt to try and fix the problem they created by attaching Lord Lieutenancies to administrative areas in the first place. They obviously used to be independent of local government, and if they'd stayed that way we wouldn't need silly pieces of legislation like the Lieutenancies Act 1997. Even now in Wales, Scotland and the so-called Metropolitan areas the Lord Lieutenancies are wrong! So in reality the government have made the confusion even worse! Owain Vaughan 11:20, Nov 4, 2003
There would be no confusion at all if atavistic traditionalists like you and 80.255 didn't go around claiming that the historical counties are real and current existing and holy and unalterable things. So please stop. Morwen 17:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Heh, even if we weren't right don't you think it would be a good idea to have a stable geographic framework anyway? What makes you think the 1974-1996 administrative areas are so 'holy' that you need to change the list on British Police back? What use is saying 'Humberside Police - Humberside'? Where is Humberside? As long as 'we' differentiate between historic geographic areas and ever-changing administrative areas where's the harm? Owain Vaughan 20:00, Nov 4, 2003
Your mistake in thinking I care about this issue as passionately as you do I don't. I am not a member of some 'association for the promotion of administrative counties' I just regard your position and you with utter contempt. I don't think they are holy. I just think it is really stupid to say "Humberside Police - parts of the east riding of yorkshire and northern lincolnshire" when you could just say "Humerside Police - Humberside." Please stop polluting wikipedia with your POV nonsense. Morwen 20:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
You don't care - fair enough. But these things should at least be consistent. Either one is going to use administrative areas or geographical areas, not a curious mix of current and former administrative areas. I mean, to use the British Police article again, why list Humberside, Berkshire and Rutland in the same article? The first two aren't administrative areas, but at the same time the last two ARE geographic areas. To use current administrative areas would be nonsensical - that would make Thames Valley - West Berkshire, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead, Slough, Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire. Wow! Good to know MY point-of-view is nonsense!! Owain Vaughan 20:00, 5 Nov 2003
It gets the job done with less words. Though you do make a good point. As you suggest I shall remove Rutland and Herefordshire from the list, and then make a note saying that it refers to the 1974 administrative counties. Btw, Berkshire still exists as an administrative county, it just has no county council. Morwen 20:38, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That just goes to show what a nonsense using administrative areas is. Having to qualify a list of areas by saying "Oh by the way, you have to refer to an old piece of legislation defining these areas, that have since been abolished" is rather odd, wouldn't you agree? And how prey tell can Berkshire be an ADMINISTRATIVE county if there is no administration? That is clearly wrong by the very definition of the word 'administrative'. This just goes to show what a mess has been made by mixing up our concept of where places are with the current local government arrangements! Why can't we stick to a set of areas that have been well known for centuries? Owain Vaughan 16:45, 6 Nov 2003
If you have a problem with the Berkshire (Structural Change) Order I suggest you take it up with Her Majesty's government. And please make sure to send a Cc: to the Lord-Lieutenant of Bristol. Morwen 16:41, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That order states, and I quote 'The County Council shall be wound up and dissolved'. That is to say the administration no longer exists. Ergo it is no longer an administrative county. They can invent all sorts of new terminology if they like, but the fact is - there are traditional counties, and administrative areas. There is no longer an administrative area called 'Berkshire' although of course the traditional county itself continues to exist. Why should I have an issue with the Lord-Lieutenant of Bristol? Bristol was a county long before administrative counties were dreamed up. Owain 12:30, 11 Nov 2003
Then compare with the Humberside (Structural Change) and (Further Provisions) orders. The first wound up the county county of humberside, the second actually abolished the administrative county and created new ones of Kingston-Upon-Hull, etc. This latter stage was not done in the case of Berkshire. Obviously the government disagrees with you.
So you would be happy for me to add Bristol to the list of traditional counties of England, and note that it is incorrectly left off the maps? Cool. Morwen 14:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Moving this to Traditional counties of Great Britain was a mistake. I haven't looked at the article for a few days and I was misled by the map but I see that this subject has now been split into England, Scotland and Wales. Could some kind person move it back to its original title please. -- Derek Ross 04:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

New Issues

Further, they claim that this (and subsequent assurances) was merely a government statement, and thus had no legal effect.

Why 'claim'. Does anyone claim that that wasn't a government statement? Or that government statements have legal effects? Morwen 11:17, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The government statement was stating what was already, legally the case. The whole line of argument regarding government statements not having legal effect is flawed, although I'm happy to leave it in, as long as it is treated as a claim, which it obviously is. 80.255 11:23, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'll try rephrasing it to be less silly than your version, then, whilst taking your point on board.

Also, where is your survey proving the 'majority' of people's alliegances have not changed? Morwen 11:18, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where is yours that proves they have? 80.255 11:23, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am not claiming otherwise. I just think we should refrain from making claims like that without evidence to back it up, especially on such as contentious issue. Morwen 11:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How to describe locations of places where the administrative county has changed

Earlier today, I wrote a lengthy question on this subject, but was unaware that a convention had already been agreed. To keep this talk page reasonably relevant, I'm deleting the now redundant discussion (see page history if interested). The relevant answer is that current administrative counties should be used, as stated on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). Many thanks to Morwen for this information. In view of this, I will edit some pages to bring them in line with the consensus convention. --Trainspotter 14:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed this:

Of course it can be argued that all political subdivisions exist in name only, insofar as they are not physical objects.

The modern administrative county of Staffordshire may not be a physical object, but it does more than "exist in name only", because its borders are used for a whole variety of governmental purposes. The same cannot be said of the traditional county of Staffordshire.

No boundaries exist "in name", they exist on the ground or on maps or in administrative practice. Reworded article. Andy G 20:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The opening sections on supporters and critics of traditional counties is rather unwieldly, given that this aticle should really deal with the counties themselves - whereas at the moment there is almost nothing on this (history, roots, political significance, etc.), but instead long arguments about their status and a list! I suggest that these sections (supports/critics) be moved to Status of the Traditional Counties of England, and the current section be replaced with a "Status" heading that summerizes the fact that there is some disagreement in respect of this matter, and provides a link to the 'status' article. I shall do this if there are no objections or better suggestions. 80.255 23:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Er why, I cant see any reason for a split. I suspect you want the fact that there is disagreement over the status of traditional counties to be swept into a quiet corner somewhere where no-one will see it. G-Man 20:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 'criticism' section is now absolutely appalling, and asserts lots of things as fact that aren't accepted by the critics. I do like the jumping on as 'shall be considered for all purposes' as being insufficiently strong, though. People have been sent to prison on such wording! Morwen 19:18, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that is it a mess - which is why I suggest that it be moved to a seperate article where it can be sorted out and better organised. By all means put the 'disputed facts' in question here, and we can try and reach a compromise. Out of interest - who actually are these critics? Apart from you and G-Man, I have never come across any specific criticism of the traditional counties. Perhaps you should start an Association for the Promotion of Top Level Administrative Areas Above All Else and gauge the level of your support!
80.255, I would suggest that the fact that no such organization exists is, in fact, evidence that sides with Morwen and G-Man. There may well be an organization somewhere in my country that agitates for West Virginia to be reunited with Virginia -- certainly it wouldn't surprise me. But as it seems unlikely that "the true Virginia" will ever be restored, there is certainly no organization actively seeking to prevent reunion. The fact that the traditional counties are passing more and more into the past as historical truths, and that it seems they will never again be used for any practical purpose, would seem to me to be indicated by the lack of any organization that seeks to prevent the use of traditional counties for practical purposes. This is likely confusing, but it made sense to me, and I thought I would therefore say it. Jwrosenzweig 19:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You have it spot on there. Usually, I would just smile and nod at 80.255, but here I don't have this option. There isn't much organised criticism of the ABC because in the real world people can just ignore them. On wikipedia however, ignoring is not an option.
I had no particular interest in this issue until various people appeared and started making edits like 'however, its real county is Middlesex'. I am looking forward to this all being over. Morwen 19:54, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Formal names

Would a list of formal names (i.e. "County of Salop", "County Palatine of Chester", etc.) be useful here? Proteus (Talk) 23:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, on a separate linked page. Andrew Yong 16:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the following non sequitur (only the italics as follows - the rest is pasted for context) from this article:

They claim that this change was nothing more than an administrative convenience, the only "purposes" referred to by the Act being those concerned with administration; they assert that the real status of these exclaves as being part of their historic county is unchanged, and that the 1844 Act was merely for the purposes of government. This places the 'administrative counties' back in time 44 years before they were specifically created by the 1888 Act. Further examples can be found, for example, the assertion that Bristol merely became an 'administrative county' in 1373.

No administrative counties existed prior to 1888. What existed at that time were 1) the historic Counties, and 2) written conventions of government used when working with these boundaries. The consideration of the 1844 act as a convetion is consistent with its use of the term "considered", which implies that a legal change did not take place, but a change in consideration or convention did. Bristol is a completely different matter - on the status of bristol and other such places I quote the ABC:

"There are, within England and Wales, 18 towns or cities which have, at various times, been granted charters apparently making them "counties" in their own right. These areas are collectively known as the "counties corporate". Such charters were actually concerned with the judicial arrangements of these towns and cities rather than their geographical status. The "county corporate" status has generally been seen as an extra dignity added to a town and has not usually been taken to mean that the town has literally been removed from its host County. For example, the General Register Office, within its Census Reports, never considered them to be so and always dealt with them as being part of the County in which they geographically lay. Numerous legal judgments found that the "counties corporate" were not "Counties in the ordinary sense of the term". This convention is followed by ABC. This is done without prejudice to the special status which many feel these places deserve."

80.255 03:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Abbreviations

What is the source for the abbreviations now being added? I would love to see a published list elsewhere as one or two were very surprising to me. In particular I found (Northumbs.) astonishing, having never seen it before. Since so many of the ones that abbreviate to XXXXs do so because (perhaps?) they were XXXXshire, what's the logic behind Northumbs? Please note that I am not vilely accusing someone of making it up - it's just I'm having one of those what the h*ll? moments that makes me want to see the source. :) Thanks, Nevilley 10:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

To amplify my point, try comparing the proportions on Google of Northumberland to Northumbs with Northamptonshire to Northants. I think it was roughly something like >2m : ~50 compared with 1.6m : 300,000. I know Google is not the Bible but this (and the docs found on Google) do seem to me to be evidence for the possibility that Northumbs is obsolete or wrong. I doubt that the wiki should be showing as fact a usage which does not appear to be standard, since this appears to condone and legitimise the usage. If it is an archaic usage then perhaps this should be made clear - it surely cannot be left claiming the same validity as Northants? Views would be most welcome. Nevilley 10:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I think our abbreviating friend must be bored today. I have never known those abbreviations to be in common use - maybe even any use at all. Several sites have been vandalised and reverts made time and again this morning --garryq 11:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
"Northumbs" is rarer, but is nonetheless a valid abbrieviation. "Warks" and "Ruts" are frequently seen. If you want to mark the less common ones, by all means do. 129.234.4.10 09:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, but it's a valid abbreviation as defined how? The very small number of references I could find using this led me to wonder if it is a mistake, or an archaic usage. I'd love to know which - can you please help with a source? Otherwise I think that it's may be more than "less common" that needs saying here. All I am saying is I would love to read about it in some other information source, which surely should be easy if it's really a valid usage? Thanks. Nevilley 11:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford Manual of Style gives the abbreviation for Northumberland as "Northumb." ("Northd." for postal purposes). Proteus (Talk) 09:42, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What does it give for Rutland? I can't imagine anyone needing to abbreviate this, and then deciding to use such an illogical abbreviation. Andrew Yong 10:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't give one for Rutland. Proteus (Talk) 11:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Aaah. Now, thanks Proteus, using OMS (or ODWE or whatever) does seem a *much* better way of making progress on these abbreviations. I had put in a note saying (politely) "some of these might be wrong" but checking them in ODWE, which for some reason (duh!) I had not thought of doing, seems a good approach. And it kills stone dead "Northumbs" which I remain convinced is just wrong - I think that this one has been accidentally made up my comparison with say Berks (where the S is relevant) and that the suggested ones make a lot more sense. The "stick an S on the end" approach is surely just some kind of folk etymology or something. If I get round to it I may edit accordingly. Thanks.

Post-1888 references to traditional counties

I propose to remove the paragraph which talks about post-1888 legislative references to the traditional counties as they really are of no relevance to the present-day debate. If there are post-1974 legislative references to ancient & traditional counties etc. then they would be worth mentioning, as having some bearing on the present legal status of the traditional counties. Andrew Yong 10:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense.
If we are noting random non-binding opinions of politicians, we might want to note the Boundary Committee agrees with the statement they are former boundaries. "A number of respondents argued that the pre-1974 boundaries of Yorkshire should be reinstated. In particular, some 50 respondents argued for the return of West Craven (currently in Lancashire) to Yorkshire." I'm quite sure the 50 people would be very upset with that characterisation of their arguements. [1] Morwen 13:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
A lot of people say things that appear to be contradictory, that's why this discussion exists! While we're on the subject of local government reorganisation in the North East, the MORI interviewers found [2] "Interestingly, the research also indicates that over three quarters of people interviewed feel a strong sense of belonging to their historical county areas - rather more than to their administrative district or county council areas" Owain 08:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another thing I discovered, is that the Association of British Counties are quite happy to regard the [[1844] changes as legitimate. Whilst they denounce specifically the use of the term 'pre-1974' or 'pre-1889' for the traditional counties, they themselves in their gazetteer use the terms 'pre-1844' and 'post-1844'. Amusingly, the Local Government Act 1972 actually repealed the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 as spent legislation, so I suppose they should really be saying the '1844-1972 traditional counties'. Morwen 13:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Changes to counties before 1888 are changes to counties, not administrative counties. Therefore pre-1844 and post-1844 are perfectly correct. Pre-1974 and pre-1889 however are confusing administrative counties with traditional ones, as those dates refer to administrative changes only. Owain 08:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Do you want to tell 80.255 that? Have a look at [3], for example. Morwen 10:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Berwick (1st para)

How does it make sense to describe Berwick as "Berwick-upon-Tweed - an anomalous possession of Britain" in the first para? I don't mean that I don't understand its status, but I do mean that the expression used there is weird - surely an "anomalous possession of Britain" sounds like it's not actually in Britain but somewhere else (just N of S. Georgia for example)? In fact I think I might change it ... --Nevilley 12:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Garryq for his version which I thought good. However I have changed it yet again as it wasn't considered part of Scotland up to then but was somewhere in between (see Berwick's own article for more). Trouble is, it's getting rather wordy for something which started as just an incidental reference to an example of the sort of weirdness that goes on, and each attempt to clarify it is just making it longer. Whilst I would hate to leave it innacurate, I wonder if it can be severely trimmed back (after all people do not need the whole explanantion of Berwick here too when they can read it with one click) or removed, perhaps by finding a less painful-to-describe example? :) --Nevilley 17:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm wondering if the NPOV message at the top of the page is necessary, and if it is, what parts of the article are disputed: surely the page largely reflects the opinions on both sides already? Andrew Yong 21:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Local historians

Any local historian who knows what they're talking about will use the appropriate county for the period they are referring to. For instance, in Sheffield, it would be senseless to describe it as lying in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the Saxon period, and it is almost never referred to as lying in the West Riding after 1974. To say they "almost always" use the traditional counties is simply wrong. Warofdreams 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)