| Author |
Message |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
john wrote:
| Quote: | Confused? I am almost sorry I started this but I will post it because I
hope it makes the point that nothing is simple or straightforward in the
naming of territories in UK.
See what I mean?
|
No, I don't really, as the subsequent posts have largely been sorting
confusion that you caused.
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
Not since it became a London Borough in the early 1960s, whereupon
that status was transferred to Guildford. The administrative HQ
remains at K-u-T, though.
'County town' was always intended to be an administrative designation,
not one of 'status'.
I'm sure it was both, and they weren't considered separable until the
anomaly caused when Kingston was stolen from Surrey. But I'm not sure
whether you're disputing my correction or simply making a comment.
|
A bit of both, really. I don't see how you can have a 'county town' which
isn't the administrative HQ.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
| Quote: | Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
Not since it became a London Borough in the early 1960s, whereupon
that status was transferred to Guildford. The administrative HQ
remains at K-u-T, though.
'County town' was always intended to be an administrative
designation, not one of 'status'.
I'm sure it was both, and they weren't considered separable until
the anomaly caused when Kingston was stolen from Surrey. But I'm
not sure whether you're disputing my correction or simply making a
comment.
A bit of both, really. I don't see how you can have a 'county town'
which isn't the administrative HQ.
|
Does it make less sense than a county town which isn't in the county?
Anyway, I think you'll find that Guildford is now officially the county
town; I'd be interested in any authoritative suggestion that it's
otherwise.
Matti
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:P6RJc.193$%B6.179@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
| Quote: | A bit of both, really. I don't see how you can have a 'county town'
which isn't the administrative HQ.
|
I think that the whole "County Town" is a complete mess. I believe that
originally when many counties took their name from their largest town, that
town was called the County Town - Hereford for Herefordshire, Sothampton
for Hampshire etc. In such cases the relevant town would naturally have
been the administrative centre, insofar as there was an adminstrative centre
before the system of counties as administrative units was unified in 1888
(or when-ever, round about then anyway).
But not all counties took their names from towns, so probably, IMO, didn't
refer to either their largest town or their administrative centre as the
County Town.
An interesting case is my original home county of Wiltshire. It takes its
name originally from Wilton, now quite a small town or large village. For
many centuries its most important settlement, and only city, was Salisbury,
its ecclesiastical HQ. But in later times (I guess from 1888 but may be
wrong) its administrative centre as been in Trowbridge. When I was young,
we regarded Salisbury as the County Town, even though County Hall was at
Trowbridge.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey.
Not since it became a London Borough in the early 1960s, whereupon
that status was transferred to Guildford. The administrative HQ
remains at K-u-T, though.
'County town' was always intended to be an administrative
designation, not one of 'status'.
I'm sure it was both, and they weren't considered separable until
the anomaly caused when Kingston was stolen from Surrey. But I'm
not sure whether you're disputing my correction or simply making a
comment.
A bit of both, really. I don't see how you can have a 'county town'
which isn't the administrative HQ.
Does it make less sense than a county town which isn't in the county?
Anyway, I think you'll find that Guildford is now officially the county
town; I'd be interested in any authoritative suggestion that it's
otherwise.
|
All county boroughs were technically separate counties, and yet the county
headquarters were usually located in county boroughs without any problem.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:P6RJc.193$%B6.179@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
A bit of both, really. I don't see how you can have a 'county town'
which isn't the administrative HQ.
I think that the whole "County Town" is a complete mess. I believe that
originally when many counties took their name from their largest town,
that town was called the County Town - Hereford for Herefordshire,
Sothampton for Hampshire etc. In such cases the relevant town would
naturally have been the administrative centre, insofar as there was an
adminstrative centre before the system of counties as administrative
units was unified in 1888 (or when-ever, round about then anyway).
But not all counties took their names from towns, so probably, IMO, didn't
refer to either their largest town or their administrative centre as the
County Town.
An interesting case is my original home county of Wiltshire. It takes its
name originally from Wilton, now quite a small town or large village. For
many centuries its most important settlement, and only city, was
Salisbury, its ecclesiastical HQ. But in later times (I guess from 1888
but may be wrong) its administrative centre as been in Trowbridge. When
I was young, we regarded Salisbury as the County Town, even though County
Hall was at Trowbridge.
|
In Wessex, counties usually took their name from the royal estate (Wilton,
Somerton), whereas in Mercia the county took its name from the most
important town (Warwick, Oxford). If Berkshire had been permanently part of
Wessex it would have been named after Wantage (Wanton?) - if it had been
permanently part of Mercia it would have been named after Reading.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
On Friday, in article
<MZUJc.261$%B6.193@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com "John Briggs" wrote:
| Quote: | Wales was slightly different, as St David's only (officially) became a city
in 1994 - although it would appear that Bangor always had been.
|
Aha! I attended UCNW in the 1960s, and had thought that Bangor[1] was
Britain's smallest city; hence I was very pissed off when, in a pub quiz,
I was told that the correct answer was St David's. I hadn't realized
that the latter's status had been so recently conferred (and at the time
of the aforementioned pub quiz, it was probably only two years in the
past: that falls under the heading of "Current Affairs", not "Geography"!)
[1] Indigenous population around 7k in those days; plus another 7k
students in term-time. With 42 pubs for the 14,000 of them  I doubt
that there are as many pubs nowadays; when I visited last May, for the
first time in 37 years, I was horrified to discover that the Castle Hotel
was now a branch of Littlewoods :-(
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
On Friday, in article <8U90b8DK4D+AFw9f@soloriens.co.uk>
john@soloriens.co.uk "john" wrote:
| Quote: | The point I wanted to make is that the questioner used the term 'city'.
It did not come from anybody's answer or explanation. To an American
almost any community that is not a New York Borough is a 'city'. The
questioner knows from my post that this is not the case in UK and that
references to the 'City of Hinton Parva' would jar on the British ear.
|
For some unexplained reason, the signboards at the boundaries of the
village [hamlet, even?] of Hinton Parva have recently acquired the sub-
text "(Little Hinton)". Is this another manifestation of dumbing-down?
Or is it more estate-agentese, like the apparent renaming of Lechlade as
Lechlade-on-Thames? (I noticed that someone in another part of the
thread referred to Dorchester-on-Thames: totally unnecessary, provided
one writes "Dorchester, Oxon" to discriminate it from the one in Dorset.)
Neither place had this spurious appendix twenty years ago.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
| Quote: | On Thursday, in article <ICTqISb4Fv9AFwDI@molly.mockford
nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk "Molly Mockford" wrote:
All the above is in reference to England. Scotland doesn't have Mayors,
it has Provosts and Lord Provosts. And I don't know how the definitions
of cities work in Scotland, despite having spent my first two decades
there. And I've no idea at all what goes on in Wales. Does anyone?
Sheep-shagging?
No, seriously though, Britain's smallest city is St Davids in Wales.
England's, of course, being the aforementioned Wells. Which makes me
wonder about another poster's mention of _diocesan_ cathedrals: both Bath
and Wells are cities (the former having an Abbey as its cathedral), but
only one bishop ("The Bishop of Bath and Wells") between them. Hmm, does
ex cathedra mean "falling between two stools"?
|
Exactly the same with Coventry: the diocese had been Lichfield and Coventry
(formerly Coventry and Lichfield). So, two cities.
Wales was slightly different, as St David's only (officially) became a city
in 1994 - although it would appear that Bangor always had been.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:43 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
In message <lYPJc.178$%B6.58@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes
| Quote: | john wrote:
Confused? I am almost sorry I started this but I will post it because I
hope it makes the point that nothing is simple or straightforward in the
naming of territories in UK.
See what I mean?
No, I don't really, as the subsequent posts have largely been sorting
confusion that you caused.
|
Oooh!
I am suitably chastised.
However I still think that if you really believe that the naming of
British 'Territories' as the questioner put it is adequately explained
to the questioner by all this dispute about what a city really is and
how the fair city of Rochester-upon-Medway lost its city status is
beyond me.
The point I wanted to make is that the questioner used the term 'city'.
It did not come from anybody's answer or explanation. To an American
almost any community that is not a New York Borough is a 'city'. The
questioner knows from my post that this is not the case in UK and that
references to the 'City of Hinton Parva' would jar on the British ear.
He knows from some of the others that pointless pedantry is still alive
in this country.
J:
--
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:57 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
john wrote:
| Quote: | In message <lYPJc.178$%B6.58@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes
john wrote:
Confused? I am almost sorry I started this but I will post it because I
hope it makes the point that nothing is simple or straightforward in the
naming of territories in UK.
See what I mean?
No, I don't really, as the subsequent posts have largely been sorting
confusion that you caused.
Oooh!
I am suitably chastised.
However I still think that if you really believe that the naming of
British 'Territories' as the questioner put it is adequately explained
to the questioner by all this dispute about what a city really is and
how the fair city of Rochester-upon-Medway lost its city status is
beyond me.
The point I wanted to make is that the questioner used the term 'city'.
It did not come from anybody's answer or explanation. To an American
almost any community that is not a New York Borough is a 'city'. The
questioner knows from my post that this is not the case in UK and that
references to the 'City of Hinton Parva' would jar on the British ear.
He knows from some of the others that pointless pedantry is still alive
in this country.
|
Who said anything about Americans?
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joachim Herzog
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:31 am
Post subject: Re: Territories |
|
|
"Mike Stevens" <michael.stevens@which.net> wrote in message
news:2loklkFf802eU1@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aIFJc.233$cb3.72@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net
Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that
isn't a city.
That's only true if you mean places that have ancient cathedrals *that are
still cathedrals*. There are also places that used to have cathedrals some
centuries ago but don't now. Ramsbury, a middle-sized village in Wiltshire,
is one example I happen to know, but I'm sure there are others.
|
Crediton, Devon
http://www.creditonparishchurch.org.uk/History.html
--
Joachim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in