Talk:Historic counties of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historic counties of England article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

	Historic counties of England is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 29, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 9, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

	England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

To-do list for Historic counties of England:

edit · history · watch · refresh

General copyedit, structure Introduction shortened to succinct summary List/table showing which went on to become administrative and non-metropolitan counties and which did not (and how the ancient subdivisions were used as the basis for some admin counties) Expanded references Section detailing role of the ancient counties - still needs work The role of major subdivisions needs to be explained Regain FA status Fix old links from redirect page in this list Correct potentially misleading claims and maps regarding Cheshire as per discussion point raised by DDStretch.

Contents 1 Archived talk 2 How long did the historic counties last? 3 Winchcombeshire 4 Cornwall 5 The Extent of Cheshire at the time of the Domesday Book 6 Probable mistake. 7 Article on historic counties 8 Corrected Misleading information about Cheshire—Done 9 ...and traditional 10 Rutland again 11 NW England in Domesday 11.1 Nothern England in Domesday 12 Did the LGA 1888 alter the counties? 12.1 Post-1889 census reports 12.2 The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5 13 Hundred governance 14 Domesday map

[edit] Archived talk

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

[edit] How long did the historic counties last?

Hi,

I am reading this article with no prior knowledge of the topic and I find it confusing. Would it be possible to add a summary in the lead paragraph of how long the counties lasted? "Several hundred years" doesn't really tell us anything. Is there some date when the historic counties were finally abolished? That could be used as an end date.--Gheuf 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The "historic", "real" or "traditional" counties were never abolished, only HM the Queen can do that by Royal Decree (which Her Majesty has never done). Paliament has even stated that "it cannot abolish, what it did not create". What happened in 1974 was the abolishment of many county councils, which are quite separate entities from the actual counties. The changes were meant to be for better administration only and weren't meant to replace local sense of identities. However maps were changed (mostly due to the fact that up-to-date maps of the UK had to show administrative units by law), the Post office adopted many of these "new" counties and Emergency services were renamed after many of the new administrative units. Its not surprising is it then, that since then a whole generation have grown up not always knowing their true birthright. For instance many people would look at you as if you were stupid if you said the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester were in Lancashire! Not that it matters as I believe the artificial EU "English Regions" will one day replace our counties. Shame.

The previous unsigned comment appears to have been entered from IP address 84.69.61.172 at 19:00, February 7, 2007.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It seems to raise the question, "What does it mean for a county to exist?" This is a philosophical question interesting perhaps in itself but distinct from the one I would like answered. The article says "the counties were used for administrative purposes for several hundred years": when did this start and stop? This is separate from the cultural question, whether people "feel" part of their traditional county, and also from the philosophical question, whether a countys' ghostly existence has been, or can ever be, terminated.--Gheuf 21:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard (impossible?) to establish the start date for administrative uses: as the article says "late middle ages" is a good comprise. It might be said to start whenever high sheriffs were first appointed which is I think pre-Norman, however the number and boundaries of counties kept evolving for centuries after that.

There are a number of possible "end points": 1844 when the boundaries were regularised, 1889 from which date counties were altered to follow the areas of county councils and county boroughs, or 1974 when there was a complete recasting. You could also go with 1918 when the parliamentary counties were realigned to the local government boundaries. This was the last use of them for anything governmental, I believe, and the census stopped compiling figures after that. I'd go with 1889, but that's just my POV. Lozleader 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is no start date, and there is no end date, then on what basis do we contrast "historic" with "modern" counties? Why don't we just say that county boundaries have changed over time?--Gheuf 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winchcombeshire

Seeing as we have a mention of Hexhamshire, shouldn't we include Winchcombeshire: not sure whether to put it under Midlands or Southern England (it had something to do with Mercia, not Wessex). Lozleader 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornwall

Although Cornwall is not normally reckoned to be a County Palatine, the Duchy of Cornwall has always enjoyed all the rights and priviledges of being such. Is there a neat way to indicate this on the list or is this something for a short paragraph underneath? AulaTPN 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Extent of Cheshire at the time of the Domesday Book

I'm busy trying to work up the History of Cheshire into something more in accordance with wikipedia's standards for good articles. In the light of this, I want to raise the following point: One sees in various places on wikipedia the mention that Cheshire's northern boundary used to be roughly the River Ribble in Lancashire, but my own reading of the subject shows the evidence is rather thin on verifying this fact. As far as I can see, the Victoria History of the County of Cheshire, Vol 1 (which also refers to the relevant parts of the Lancashire books in the series) expresses uncertainty about this of sufficient degree to make the degree of certainty of the various statements on wikipedia, along with the map on the article itself, inaccurate. This, in turn, leads to the claims themselves becoming inaccurate. Since the Victoria History series is a highly regarded source of well-researched and verified information, I think it needs to be given close attention. The best section that summarizes the situation as verified by the Victoria History of the County of Chester, Vol 1 is this, on page 252:

Certainly there were links between Cheshire and south Lancashire before 1000, when Wulfric Spot held lands in both territories.[ref given] Wulfric's estates remained grouped together after his death, when they were left to his brother Aelfhelm, and indeed there still seems to have been some kind of connexion in 1086, when south Lancashire was surveyed together with Cheshire by the Domesday commissioners. Nevertheless, the two territories do seem to have been distinguished from one another in some way and it is not certain that the shire-moot and the reeves referred to in the south Lancashire section of Domesday were the Cheshire ones.[ref given and my emphasis]

In the light of this, I would suggest that the entries and the map that baldly claim that Cheshire possessed the lands between the Mersey and the Ribble are misleading, and should be altered accordingly.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probable mistake.

In the section on the Midlands you have Rutland associated with Nottinghamshire.

I believe this should Leicestershire instead. Notice that Rutland does not share a border with Nottinghamshire.

I grew up in Leicestershire(born 1955)and when I was young all the county-related vehicles (fire trucks etc) said "Leicestershire and Rutland...". Rutland was absorbed into Leicestershire when the counties were redrawn in the early 1970's.

Bryn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.244.205 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 June 2007

When you say "you have Rutland" - Everyone can edit articles on wikipedia, there is no "you", feel free to make amendments if you can provide a verifiable source for it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

the fact that Rutland does not share a border with Nottinghamshire is a red-herring. Many exclaves or detached parts of counties existed before widespread reform in the nineteenth century. Intead, I refer you to the Domesday Book, in which, it has been reported, "The north-western part of the county of Rutland was recorded as Rutland, a detached part of Nottinghamshire, in the Domesday Book; the south-eastern part as the wapentake of Wicelsea in Northamptonshire. It was first mentioned as a separate county in 1159, but as late as the 14th century it was referred to as the 'Soke of Rutland'." (see History of Rutland, though this cannot be taken as definitive evidence). In an online article largely based on the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittannica, we read:

The district which is now Rutland was probably occupied by a tribe of Middle Angles in the 6th or 7th century, and was subsequently absorbed in the kingdom of Mercia. Although mentioned by name in the will of Edward the Confessor, who bequeathed it to his queen Edith for life with remainder to Westminster Abbey, Rutland did not rank as a county at the time of the Domesday Survey, in which the term Rutland is only applied to that portion assessed under Nottinghamshire, while the S.E. portion of the modern county is surveyed under Northamptonshire, where it appears as the wapentake of Wiceslea. Rutland is first mentioned as a distinct county under the administration of a separate sheriff in the pipe roll of 1159, but as late as the 14th century it is designated "Rutland Soke" in the Vision of Piers Plowman, and the curious connexion with Nottinghamshire, a county which does not adjoin it at any point, was maintained up to the reign of Henry III., when the sheriff of Nottingham was by statute appointed also escheator in Rutland. Of the five modern hundreds of Rutland, Alstoe and Martinsley appear in the Domesday Survey of Nottinghamshire as wapentakes, Martinsley at that date including the modern hundred of Oakham Soke; East hundred and Wrangdike hundred are mentioned in the middle of the 12th century, the latter formerly including the additional hundred of Little Casterton. The shire-court for Rutland was held at Oakham.

(webpage here.)

So, unless one only considers very recent history, I don't think Rutland has ever been associated with Leicestershire. However, in this case, as in the case of the claims about Cheshire, which I noted above, there does seem to be some lack of clarity and hence slight inaccuracy in the claims that "Rutland was an anomalous territory or Soke, associated with Nottinghamshire, that eventually became considered the smallest county." (see marticle), because it is incomplete.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on historic counties

Please note that I am close to completing an article which will address these concerns mentioned above:

1) List/table showing which went on to become administrative and non-metropolitan counties and which did not (and how the ancient subdivisions were used as the basis for some admin counties) 2) Expanded references 3) Section detailing role of the ancient counties - still needs work.

It will also include a list of e.g. County emblems, official County flowers and (where applicable) County flags.

I invite anyone with an interest in this subject to contact me, in which case I'll be pleased to send a draft of the article in the hope that it can be improved further before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Bennett (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 August 2007

I have an interest in this subject, but believe the article is more than adequate, and I'd object to much of your plans. On your points:

1) List/table is not required - it's coverered within the prose already.

2) References are of a high quality on this article. Material from CountyWatch or it's affliates are not reliable sources.

3) Some of the role of the ancient counties could be elaborated on perhaps, though we shouldn't get over-detailed about specific Counts etc. Perhaps something on the Hundreds and Wapentakes might be useful.

4) I wholly object to the inclusion of County emblems and county flowers, as for the most part, these are contemporary vexological devices assigned unofficially and thus would be an anachronism. Jza84 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Misleading information about Cheshire—Done

As i mentioned on this page some time ago, I've now added material to correct the misleading account of the northern border of Cheshire at the time of the Domesday book. I've left it with two outstanding issues: the first one is the status of the small map that says it depicts the state of the counties at the time of the Domesday Survey. In the light of the authoritative sources I've referenced, it is misleading. I've stated that in a footnote, but I wonder whether the map ought to be re-drawn. The second issue is concerned with the format for referencing. I've noticed that the references and full details of these that I have given are a bit more complete than the ones currently given (for example, I give the ISBN number and the place and publishers, as well as formatti9ng them slightly differently.) I've left them as they are, placing them in a separate bibliography section, as this use is one I've used before, and seems more suited to a situation where one is referencing multiple times, the same sources but with different page numbers for some of them. Would people object at all if I slowly made all non-website references conform to this method (placing them in a bibliography section, allowing them to be noted in a shorthand way in the notes section), or should I fit them in with what has been done before? A compromise might be to include the publishers and ISBN numbers on all the books so far referenced, but to merge mine in with the rest. I'm happy to go either way, and will work to whatever consensus agrees upon here.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and traditional

Having reviewed the literature on the subject, I cannot find evidence or a suitable reference for the ancient/historic counties in this article being known as traditional. The nearest I came to this was a reference to traditional boundaries (e.g. The traditional boundary with Somerset was restored). The only use of the concept of traditional counties relates to the ABC lobby group. MRSC • Talk 12:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This was my concern too, a long while back, when I proposed we change the name of the article to reflect this. I think "traditional" deserves a mention, but perhaps moreso in the restoration section, as part of ABC's efforts?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a need to have "traditional" somewhere in here so that it can be pointed to in other wiki articles? if so, perhaps a (brief) sub-section about its use could be added, and any desired links could point directly to that sub-section? However, it may well be that there just is too little information to justify even a sub-section.

I've been thinking about the errors discovered in the claims made in this article (one corrected, above, and the other about Rutland not yet corrected), and think the referencing could be improved so that specific page numbers of books could pin-point where the information can be found. I think it would be a good idea to try to move towards doing that for this article, given the nature of it and issues surrounding it which have occupied editors on wikipedia from time to time.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the restoration section, replacing 'ancient and geographic'. MRSC • Talk 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rutland again

W. L. Warren, The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency: The Prothero Lecture, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 34. (1984), pp. 113-132. [1]

Rutland is, according to Warren, "a striking example of Norman administrative bumbling" and a "by-product of tenth century history".

He states that the territories liberated from the Danes were shired "in the English fashion by hundreds and hides" as Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. When the Five Boroughs submitted four of them became Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire "though retaining their subdivision into wapentakes and their Danish form of assessment".

The fifth of the "five boroughs" - Stamford - had only three wapentakes. Warren reckons that Stamford was constituted a royal soke: a "special jurisdiction" under direct royal control.

He goes on to note there were a number of similar sokes in eastern England, including the Soke of Peterborough and the Liberty of Bury St Edmunds (which eventually became West Suffolk).

He reckons that the status of Stamford as a soke was a temporary expediency for strategic reasons. Prior to the conquest the area had been divided:

• Stamford was in Lincolnshire,
• the southern wapentake had passed to Northamptonshire (and had been converted into a "double hundred" reassessed in hides).
• The two other wapentakes were "reckoned as part of" Nottinghamshire "to make up a deficiency in its assessment" and were still divided ino caracutes.

The Domesday Book recorded this situation.

By the time of the pipe roll of 1130 the Notinghamshire and Northamptonshire portions (assessed in hides and caracutes respectively) were considered a single district of Roteland under the control of royal forest officers. The sheriffs of Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire were seemingly still nominally in charge but were exempted from collecting geld in Roteland. This situation persisted until the 13th century. In the reign of King John when Rutland was removed from Northants and Notts and given its own sheriff. In a footnote he adds the caveat that "the evidence for the status of Rutland at the end of the twelfth century is equivocal", and that it was described as a comitatus in a royal charter of 1204,.

Warren attributes the creation of the territory of "Roteland" to William I's appropriation of royal estates in the area, which were supposed to pass to Westminster Abbey on the death of Queen Edith in 1075. As the area was good hunting land, he took it for a royal forest.

He concludes by asking: Why, we may ask, did the government persist for so long with an administrative fiction? The answer is that Domesday Book did not recognise the separate entity of Rutland but recorded it as divided between Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, and for a century after its completion Domesday Book was sacrosanct: it was the administrators' bible.

He cites the following works which might be worth sniffing out:

• C. Phythian Adarns, Rutland reconsidered, in Mercian Studies, ed. A. Dornier (Leicester, 1977), 63-84

• F.M. Stenton, Rutland: introduction to the Domesday Survey, Victoria County History of Rutland, i. pp. 121 - 136.

Lozleader (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, am I right in thinking are you saying that Rutland ought to be omitted as a Domesday county? If this is the case, ought the map currently being used be ammended for the discrepencies of Cheshire and Rutland? All this is good wholesome scholarly research! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it looks that way. Lozleader (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly does! I'll see what I can do for the map (though can't promise anything :-) ) -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I've just given the map a blast in Adobe Photoshop. You may have to refresh your browsers to see the changes. I've changed the northern boundary of Cheshire and amalgamated Rutland with Northamptonshire - let me know if that's what the intention was, or if I can fix this further. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The decision about Rutland is what i found out some time ago as well, and so it is good to get some movement on that front. I do, however, have some suggestions about further changes to the excellent work done by Jza84 on editing the map: First, Rutland. The problem is that the area roughly occupied by Rutland in the unedited map was divided between Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, and there may be a need to explain that a detached part of Nottinghamshire lies there (it is probably too small to be shown clearly on the map.) Secondly, Cheshire. The edited map nows shows that the area of land north of the Mersey was in the old county of Yorkshire, when I don't believe the evidence is there for taht either:. Instead (although I do not have the appropriate sources to really confirm this to hand) I have a vague memory that it may not have been in any county at that time. If this were confirmed, we need some means of denoting an "unshired" area on the map. The second issue with Cheshire which has gradually dawned on me after reading about it in some detail, is that it does not include two hundreds that were originally in the county, but which now form part of wales (Atiscross and Exestan were their names.) Clear maps of the extent of these are found in the appropriate Victoria History volume (pages 340 and 341 of Volume 1, in fact) Now that I have various PC issues resolved, I may be able to provide a rough drawing of the shape of the county if it is felt that these should be included (I think they should be!)

The legend of the map needs to be altered, by the way (I'll do that if people want). Perhaps it is there that a comment or footnote can explain the detached part of Nottinghamshire business. as well as the changed boundary of England at that time to include the two lost hundreds of Cheshire?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NW England in Domesday

From the same article quoted above:

"The territories which later formed Lancashire appear in separate parts of Domesday Book. The northern half appears, sketchily, in the Yorkshire folios, assessed in Danish carrucates, but organised in Northumbrian chieftainries which the Normans converted into the baronies of Amounderness and Lonsdale....

The southern half appears in Domesday Book as an appendage to Cheshire, under the heading 'Between Ribble and Mersey'". Lozleader (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly much of what became South East Lancs was omitted from the Domesday book, partly (as I understand) because of the Danelaw which had ravaged the area - could be fanciful text I've read somewhere though, so correct me if I'm wrong on that one. According to the Amounderness and Lonsdale (hundred) articlee, these were apparently older than the County of Lancaster, and originally part of Yorkshire, which seems to back up where we're taking this. Wasn't Carlisle part of County Durham or Northumbria at some point prior to the 12th century however? I seem to remember reading this somewhere. The current Domesday map also suggests that Northumbria had exacting boundaries with the "historic county boundaries".

Another descrepency could be the Anglo-Scottish border; wasn't Berwick-upon-Tweed (and other border settlements) part of Scotland at the time of the Domesday survey? Also, how do we tackle the Lord of the Isle of Wight - surely the Isle wasn't a county (or technically part of England) in 1086? Just throwing a few points out there!...

I suppose I could introduce dashed or diminished boarderlines to some of the disputed territories. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jza84, but Lonsdale and Amounderness could well have been part of Yorkshire before Lancashire came into existence, and still not have been part of Yorkshire at the time of Domesday. That is what I have a vague memory of reading about somewhere. The problem is what do we do about it?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, that corresponds with my memory of reading about it. In the case of Cheshire, the inclusion seems now unlikely to have been done because the area was actually part of Cheshire (Inter Ripam et Mersham was the actual phrase used to describe it in Domesday). The same could have happened with the area north of the Ribble (Ripam in the Latin phrase), though I wish I had a written source that either states or refutes the idea of uncertainty.

[edit] Nothern England in Domesday

In fact, now I am attending to this issue, another problem with the map occurs to me: the area in the north east and far north west was not even surveyed at the time, and so it seems misleading to denote Northumberland separately, and the rest as part of some "Greater Yorkshire". Although we cannot use wikipedia as a source for itself, the following paragraph from Domesday Book (its in the first section) accurately describes what my memory tells me was the case:

Domesday Book is really two independent works. One, known as Little Domesday, covers Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. The other, Great Domesday, covers the rest of England, except for lands in the north that would later become Westmorland, Cumberland, Northumberland and County Durham (because some of these lands were under Scottish control at the time). There are also no surveys of London, Winchester and some other towns. The omission of these two major cities is probably due to their size and complexity. Cumberland is missing because it was not conquered until some time after the survey and the Prince-Bishop William of St. Carilef had the exclusive right to tax Durham; the omission of the other counties has not been fully explained. Parts of the North East of England were covered by the 1183 'Boldon Book', which listed those areas liable to tax by the Bishop of Durham.

if this is the case, the entire northern part of the map could well be potentially misleading as a county is included which was not a "Domesday book" county, and northern parts of what is now England are included when, at the time, they were part of Scotland. I suspect if we agree upon this, the map needs some more radical editing, and some means of indicating potentially "unshired" areas is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict!... It seems there are lots, and lots of issues. But what strikes me as a possible solution is a map for Great Domesday, and another for Little Domesday? OR... something we could do, but I'm reluctant to say really, is remove the map altogether as original research. Certainly there are lots of ammendments here, like the Wales-Cheshire boundary which is an intresting one you pointed out. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(another edit conflict)

I really think at the moment we should simply remove the map as WP:OR because it is clearly an original synthesis of material from different sources. As we have seen, it isn't even totally accurate, because it relies on supposition. If we remove the map, we could then have separate maps of Little Domesday and Greater Domesday "overlaid" on a standard map of Great Britain. It would also need some explanation in the main text, I suggest. We need to attend to correcting the existing text as well. It just illustrates how oversimplified and inaccurate some of the facts stated in the Historic Counties movement can become, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these suggestions. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a tentative start at clarifying the text concerning the scope of the survey in the north of the country. If no one else objects, I will be prepared to remove the map, and we can take it on from there. Should we have a new map pre-prepared, so that we can "slot in" the new maps as soon as the old map is removed? It might lessen the potential problems of people thinking we were mucking around if we did that.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did the LGA 1888 alter the counties?

The answer is no, it did not. Read on for the evidence.

[edit] Post-1889 census reports

Let's start with the 1891 census. The preliminary report has this to say about the counties:

"The counties to which the figures given above refer are the old historical areas, that is, the areas which are ordinarily meant when the term county is used. But there are also other areas that are designated by the same title, namely, the registration or union counties, which are aggregates of registration districts or poor law unions, and since the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888, the administrative counties'. These latter differ from the ancient counties, firstly, in that certain urban sanitary districts which lie partly in one and partly in another ancient county are for administrative purposes included in that county which contains the larger portion of the population, and secondly, in that many of the larger towns have been made into county boroughs, and have administrative powers of their own."

It is very clear from this wording that the LGA 1888 created a new set of counties for administrative purposes and that the word "county" was still assumed to refer to the historic counties. The following phrase is then used:

"The figures for the ancient counties or counties proper".

This is pretty unambiguous. Five years after the 1888 Act the "counties proper" were considered to be the historic counties, not the administrative counties with their associated county boroughs.

Now let's go to the 1901 census and the preliminary report:

"The counties referred to in the last table and in the foregoing remarks are the old historical areas, i.e., the ancient or geographical areas which are ordinarily understood by the term county".

Similar wording to the 1891 report.

From the 1911 census general report, this is from the population section:

"Much, however, still remains to be done in the direction of diminishing the confusion and overlapping of boundaries, and there are still three kinds of Counties, with their constituent parts, the Ancient, the Registration and the Administrative, all of which have to be separately distinguished in the Census Reports.

Ancient or geographical Counties are the basis of the Parliamentary County Divisions as constituted by the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885."

And:

"Administrative Counties were created by the Local Government Act of 1888; they number 62, and the boundaries of these modern counties differ in nearly every case from the boundaries not only of the Registration Counties (see page 45), but also of the Ancient Counties."

The 1921 general report makes it clear that the new boundaries are administrative:

"earlier records referring to the ancient county and those since 1891 corresponding to the areas within the more recently constituted administrative boundaries."

It goes on to explain why records are no longer published for the historic counties:

"With the redistribution of seats which has taken place under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the statistical interest in the ancient or geographical county upon which the old parliamentary divisions were based has, except from its historical aspect, almost disappeared."

Clearly, the counties still exist. But they are no longer used for public administration, hence the GRO has no need to collect data for them.

[edit] The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5

The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5, a definitive reference work of the time, takes the same approach as the GRO. It refers to Middlesex as "bounded on the N by Herts, on the E by Essex, on the SE by Kent, on the S and the SW by Surrey, and on the W by Bucks". It goes on to say:

"The ancient or geographical county of Middlesex includes metropolitan parishes north of the Thames (except North Woolwich), which now form part of the administrative county of London."

This section up to here seems to have been added by User:Lancsalot at 00:56, January 11, 2008 . Please remember to add your signature!

Sorry. But a few editors will appreciate the importance of this information. Lancsalot (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they will, and I wasn't doubting that. I was merely trying to make clear who wrote the above.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really is old news and the type of stuff discredited time and time again by the editting community. Indeed how a gazetteer of 1894-5 can be accepted as commentary on an act of government taking place in 1888 I really do not know. Besides, a consensus exists; We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Indeed how a gazetteer of 1894-5 can be accepted as commentary on an act of government taking place in 1888 I really do not know." Did u really write that? Lancsalot (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread this. In utter rage of your return ;). The policy and community feeling on this still stands however. I don't think it's going to be feasible that you're ideas (which appear to have changed little) are going to be accepted or facilitated by the community. A spade is spade as they say, and these kind of ideas on minor technicalites and carefully selected quotes are considered fringe views. You need to take your ideas to Wikipedia:Village pump I believe, if you wish to change WP:PLACE. I would also urge you to downplay any militancy in canvassing other users; this isn't a war, just a discussion page. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid u r betrayed by your prejudice on this issue. The sign of an intellectually honest man is that, when confronted with overwhelming evidence against his prior views, he will change his opinion. However I await the view of more sophisticated editors. Lancsalot (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, suggesting I'm somehow unsophisticated isn't particularly pleasant. Certainly in the year since you left Wikipedia (prior to a formal mediation hearing you were about to be taken to by User:Morwen on this matter of what she too called fringe or unusual views) the policy on civility has not changed. One could interpret your actions (which are within but your first few) as bad faith personal attacks. Please try to be more polite with your discussion in future; it is unlikely you will obtain a consensus in any matter being rude with other users.

That said, that a policy exists isn't a matter of prejudice, but a matter of fact, and one that cannot be so blindly dismissed. Indeed I actually pointed out a page with which you can try to facilitate your ideas. I would imagine that (once again) an overwhelming majority of users will dismiss these points. I would welcome a third opinion and have this issue closed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Morwen claimed that "ancient or geographical" counties had been invented by ABC in the 1970s. I'm sure she believed this at the time, and I know she (and User:Lozleader) did some honest research on this so I have no cause for complaint. However, the above sources now online prove the claims of ABC to be correct. Lancsalot (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. I believe the issue to be far more complex. Namely, how many other sources use "geographical"? How reliable is the source? Why didn't the term catch on? Is this term familliar with readers? What does the term "geographical" mean or imply? Is a source so soon after the LGA1888 suitable for use with asserting modern usage, terms and understanding?... This is one source that uses the term, but this isn't in anyway an official or even widespread term; at best it is a secondary source and at double-best it may back-up one point within hundreds of discredited and totally bogus claims made by this "pressure group" ABC. Also, "geographical" isn't quite the same as "geographic" (which was once asserted here). Finally, We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries; this is a thorn in the side of this issue that isn't going to go away without a consensus (which, as the policy states, is unlikely due to it being a minority view). Even if we say in this article "Middlesex [and it is only Middlesex] was once called a "geographical county" shortly after a major boundary reform, by one secondary/tertiary source", this isn't going to do a great deal for the article anyway. Of course it is well known that Middlesex remained a geographic frame of reference for a while after the LGA1888, which is probably why the author introduced his/her original research. I'm sure you'll agree... right? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The General Register Office is an official, primary source and is the best source we have as a contemporary interpretation of the LGA 1888. The point is that the counties were not legally altered by this Act and therefore remain in legal existence. Your desperate evasions are not remotely convincing. It's time to accept you were wrong and move on. Lancsalot (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn! Of course, how stupid of me, I've been wrong all this time!!... Sorry it's not going to happen, you need to be more realistic here and less personal. Some answers would have been nice, or some calm debate. Dismissing me is hardly going to persuade me. As it stands I'm merely aligned to the source material and consensus I've seen; Don't shoot the messenger! Again, having someone reply to you, provide a few concerns and queries only for you to call them "desperate evasions" isn't particularly helpful or civil. I would urge you to be less dismissive of users who may or may not have alternative perspectives to yourself. I've read (and in some cases now own) the books, seen the debates and I'm totally comfortable with where verifiability and commonsense lies; I'm satified with the policy (WP:PLACE) as it stands now, and believe it outlines several reasons why this kind of view based on selective quotes and minor technicallities is totally unhelpful for a modern encyclopedia with a modern readership. Even if you convinced me these counties exist in law (which frankly I'm not too interested in), or a thousand others, we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Even if the counties still exist in law (but in a kind of purgatory state of unofficial uncommon geographic recognition), the policy still stands.... Of course, one could pull out the sources that state that these former counties are just that, former counties, but we've been through this all before. I didn't evade the source provided but was concerned as to its relevance; I'd be interested to know how one can evade WP:PLACE and the "former counties" sources (ones which the vast majority of people are aligned too). Wikipedia's British geography articles have flourished with this issue (championed pretty much singlehandedly by yourself in 2006) being dead for so long. I see little scope to action any of the changes you desire here; try not to take that personally, it's just my belief. I don't know what else to say other that I wish you luck. Don't forget though... We do not take... -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't anything new in any of this. We have dealt with the wording of the 1888 act, the census reports and all of the above before. My best advice is to search through the original debates on these matters (there is lots available) as the facts have not changed, or the project's position. Furthermore, I don't think its right to give oxygen to an old, long and counterproductive debate. MRSC • Talk 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're sticking with the original conclusion of the debate? Lancsalot (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lancsalot, you are entirely right. Unfortunately it seems that some people seem convinced that policy over-rides reality. User Jza84 has just admitted that he's not too interested in whether the ancient counties exist in law! I cannot myself believe the lawful existence is an 'extreme or minority view' with which an encyclopedia shouldn't concern itself. The current policy seems ill-conceived and half-baked in the extreme, and the censi quotes you provide are welcome in further clarifying the legal status of the ancient counties. However, the argument seems to be that even though the current policy doesn't allow fair representation of the facts, it cannot be changed. This is clearly a nonsense in a consensus-driven project, and the not insignificant numbers of editors unhappy with the current policy are testament to the lack of consensus. It has been several years since the WP:PLACE policy seems to have been discussed properly, and I think it's high time the matter was reopened, in order to better reflect and preserve accuracy and reality throughout wikipedia. We must be wary of being fobbed off with replies stating that it was discussed years ago and can't be re-opened - the simple facts of the matter is a) the current treatment of the ancient counties is neither accurate nor verifiable and b) there is a growing lack of consensus. I read your proposal for seperating off pre-1974 administrative counties, and I must say it was shouted down by many users who clearly didn't understand the purpose of what you were trying to do, nor the inherent benefits in clearly distinguishing between discrete entities. This sort of wiki-mob-rule is not the way the create an accurate and perspicacious encyclopedia. I fully endorse any attempt you make to open a much-needed discussion on this matter. An Edwardian Sunday (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As a new Wikipedian, but with a longstanding interest in this matter, I have been shocked to read through the diatribes leading to what Jza84 describes as a consensus. The facts are quite plain and are laid out in both the 1888 & 1972 Acts.

The Statutory Counties still exist. New Administrative Counties - for solely administrative purposes - were created in 1889, but all the new Councils failed to use the word Administrative - sowing the seeds for this misunderstanding a century later. In 1974 all the Administrative Counties were abolished and new, Metropolitan or Non-Metropolitan, Councils were created. Once again, the Councils omitted part of their titles. Since then there have been more changes, leading to the present chaos of over 200 local authorities of almost a dozen different kinds.

If you want to persist with this framework, then fine. Just stop perpetuating the falsehood that you are discussing the Statutory Counties and start using the heading Administrative Units of Local Government. DavidFRAS (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hundred governance

What is the correct way to describle the governance of a hundred? Hundred court, Hundred meeting? MRSC • Talk 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the system was uniform, but Salfordshire had a pan-hundred court at Salford (hense the name). I'm not sure about the rest, but this may be an indicator. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've seen a few references to Hundred court. I think I'll go with that unless there was an alternative arrangement. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hundred court is the term used in material discussing the governance of Cheshire, although a local term (probably arising from Cheshire Palatine status) was sometimes used, they claim: tourn. Sources I've used are the Victoria History (Vol 1) for Cheshire, and Dorothy J Clayton's (1990) book: The administration of the county palatine of Chester 1442-85. A few more sources to give confidence, I hope.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Domesday map

Ought this map go? I know we've discussed this in the past. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

unless we can quickly make it accurate, it would be better of gone, I think. I'm busy trying to make up some maps about the Diocese of Chester at the moment (with later ones about old administrative boundaries within Cheshire, including the Hundreds boundaries), but I'm struggling to sort out a problem with Vista and a scanner the moment which is hampering things a bit.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll tag the map for deletion then, even if just to stimulate a debate about it.

On another note, the Chester/Lancaster issue remains outstanding here yes. I just learned that Salford was anceintly within the Earldom of Chester. I'm not familliar with Earldom's in the slightest, but there seems to be a connection with the shires. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but don't think it is outstanding, if you read the footnotes (numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) I have added about the matter in this article, in History of Lancashire (footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), History of Cheshire (footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and so on (there are a few others, including some of the Hundreds articles, like Hundreds of Cheshire and Blackburn (hundred).) As I understand it, the connection via possession by an Earldom doesn't imply that they were administratively under the same structures, since various Earls had various possessions in sometimes quite disparate areas of the UK and abroad, and they didn't come under unified administrations as a result. This is discussed in one of the Cheshire Community County books in its series on the History of Cheshire in addition to the Victoria History books. The Victoria History series for Cheshire and the most recent of the various other reliable sources for the History of Cheshire seem all now to agree that the actual boundaries of Cheshire was the Mersey. "Inter Ripam et Mersham" now is said not to be allocated to any county at the time of Domesday, and its close connection with Cheshire was due to its geographical closeness and its returns being bound in with the same set of pages as the returns for Cheshire in the actual book(s) that made up the Domesday books. If you think what I've written is not sufficient, or is actaully inaccurate, let's see if we can sort it out.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My choice of words was poor there I think, very poor. I think the footnote system has clarified the position more than adequately. I just wondered how the Earldom of Chester fitted into the system, as I haven't seen anything about this in an article until yesterday. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (and I may have to go back and re-read some things) is that within Cheshire, the palatine status of the county meant that the Earldom treated its Cheshire possessions as almost a semi-autonomous part of England at the time (I've over-simplified it). Outside of Cheshire, I think the Earldom's possessions were on a much more equal status to any other possessions by any other Earldom within the main body of England (excepting Palatine counties) at the time. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for? I think Demesne, and related articles might give some kind of insight into this, but I find specific information a bit hard to come by, and I remain a little unclear about things myself (which is why I haven't been confident about writing stuff including any of this into articles yet.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

County Palatine may also have some useful information, references, or links as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)