UKs most dangerous roads
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Flying car
Next: One in 10 UK roads are 'high risk'
From: Nick Finnigan on 8 Jul 2010 13:25 JNugent wrote: > > Writing as a Lancastrian, born and bred (even if born less than a mile > within the county), I'd be interested to know what time period is being > referenced with the statement that everything south of the Ribble was > once in Cheshire. Basically, before Lancashire was founded in the 12th century. I think it would have been the hundreds of West Derby and Salford.
From: Steve Firth on 8 Jul 2010 13:50 JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> wrote: > Writing as a Lancastrian, born and bred (even if born less than a mile within > the county), I'd be interested to know what time period is being referenced > with the statement that everything south of the Ribble was once in Cheshire. From the Domesday book to the middle of the 12th Century, approximately. But I'll remind you that you were using ancient history for your claims, so I upped the ante. I'd also be most amused if you could come up with a "geographic" definition of a county. Counties are, and always have been, administrative entities. They are just lines drawn on maps.
From: Mike Barnes on 8 Jul 2010 14:32 JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm>: >Counties have never needed county councils as a validation of their >existence. Perhaps not but they've needed *something*, surely. Otherwise, what's the point? -- Mike Barnes
From: Nick Finnigan on 8 Jul 2010 14:44 Mike Barnes wrote: > JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm>: >> Counties have never needed county councils as a validation of their >> existence. > > Perhaps not but they've needed *something*, surely. A county court, and a regiment? > Otherwise, what's the point?
From: JNugent on 8 Jul 2010 15:49
Steve Firth wrote: > JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> wrote: >> Writing as a Lancastrian, born and bred (even if born less than a mile within >> the county), I'd be interested to know what time period is being referenced >> with the statement that everything south of the Ribble was once in Cheshire. > From the Domesday book to the middle of the 12th Century, approximately. I can't agree. The more immediately available historical data show that the Hundreds (this is in the 11th century) extended no further north than the Mersey in the west and only to about the same extent as the more recent "historical Cheshire" in the east (around Mottram). > But I'll remind you that you were using ancient history for your claims, > so I upped the ante. I am certainly not referencing ancient history - only the period during which the English counties have existed (more or less the period since jujst after the Norman conquest). It is quite easy to find earlier historical records of a region based on Chester exerting some influence beyond the Mersey, but that is not the same thing as Cheshire (a later concept) incorporating part of Lancashire (another later concept). There *was* a time when the counties didn't exist at all. The Romans are thought to have intended Chester as their northern sub-capital, and perhaps even as the capital of Britain, so influence spreading across the Mersey would not be a surprise. There was a later time when all the counties existed on their traditional (pre-1974) boundaries. That those original boundaries were or were not all established in the same instant is not of any great significance. You wouldn't expect them to have been established or defined simultaneously. > I'd also be most amused if you could come up with a "geographic" > definition of a county. It's quite easy when a county is bounded by the coast and/or a river and especially when two counties are separated by a river estuary up to a mile wide. Elsewhere, the significance of the line originally adopted may have been downgraded by the years. > Counties are, and always have been, > administrative entities. They are just lines drawn on maps. Indeed they originally were. But they were nothing to do with county councils, except by even more (and rather more modern) contrivance. |