 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / July 2004Territories
Hi Just a silly question... ... Personal Identifying Data ... Birthplace: Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, UK ... How are, each of the above territories, called in English? Edinburgh = City Midlothian = Scotland = UK = Thank you > Hi > Just a silly question... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How are, each of the above territories, called in English? Better "What are each ... called?" > Edinburgh = City > > Midlothian = county > Scotland = Country > UK = Also "country" The UK is a multi-national state, so Scotland is a country which is part of the country called the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Regards, Einde O'callaghan >> Hi >> Just a silly question... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >county Not a 'county', but a 'local government area' (named as such by the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994). [1] >> Scotland = >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of the country called the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern >Ireland). [1] http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940039_en_1.htm The historic counties of Scotland still exist but are used only for land registration purposes.  SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) <snip> > The historic counties of Scotland still exist but are used only for land > registration purposes. I thought Midlothian was a historic county - I seem to remember it from my atlas as a child. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan "Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote... > > The historic counties of Scotland still exist but are used only for > > land registration purposes. > > > I thought Midlothian was a historic county - I seem to remember it > from my atlas as a child. It certainly was and remains so -- I think Peter's comment is much too sweeping. Here's _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ on the topic of Midlothian: -- council area and historic county in southeastern Scotland, south of the Firth of Forth. The historic county and council area cover somewhat different territories. The council area encompasses a suburban and rural area south and southeast of Edinburgh. The northern part of the council area occupies the low coastal plain bordering the Firth of Forth. The rest is gently rolling country that gradually slopes upward to the Moorfoot Hills in the south. The River Esk flows northward through the area to drain into the Firth of Forth. The council area lies entirely within the historic county, which also encompasses the southeastern portion of West Lothian council area, a hilly region south of the Moorfoot Hills surrounding the upper valley of Gala Water in the Scottish Borders council area, the town of Musselburgh in East Lothian council area, and most of the council area of the city of Edinburgh, including the city's historic core. Matti >"Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote... >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It certainly was and remains so -- I think Peter's comment is much too >sweeping. My comment was based on information (written before the latest reorganisation in 1995) at http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/localgovt.html <extract> In 1995, local government in Scotland will be reorganised into 29 unitary authorities, replacing the two tier system which has existed since the last reorganisation of local goverment in 1974, following the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1973. Between 1974 and 1995 there were 9 Regional Authorities (divided into 53 District Councils) and 3 unitary Island Councils. The 3 island authorities will be retained after 1995. Prior to 1974, Scotland was divided into counties and the larger cities were governed by City Corporations. The old counties are still used as the basis of Land Registration in Scotland. </quote> >Here's _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ on the topic of Midlothian: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Matti SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >>"Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote... >>> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >>Matti Whilst all of the above is accurate as far as I know there is an important difference between British and American usage of the term "City". Not every town of any consequence in UK is called a city. Many large urban areas are designated "Town". Reading is one example, there are doubtless many others. When visiting the US I was surprised to see signs denoting the 'City Limits' of communities that would be regarded as Villages or even hamlets in this country. There are some places in UK that have, for historical reasons, designations that do not seem to correspond to the size of the community but in the main Cities are bigger than towns, Towns are bigger than Villages and Villages bigger then Hamlets. Towns or cities may have Suburbs or Districts. London has its constituent London Boroughs which have suburbs and districts of their own. As far as local Government outside London goes things are far from simple. The lowest level of Local Government is The Civil Parish, Sometimes called a town council (which is nothing at all to do with a church parish). These operate under the District Councils and they take their place under the County Councils. In some places County and District Councils are combined into Unitary Authorities. (In others the powers of both are limited by the existence of National Parks). In Scotland and Wales there are devolved national Governments. There may soon be Regional Governments in England. There are no town or city police departments nor for the main part, fire departments as these are organised on a county or regional basis. If you think this is all a terrible mess and wonder how we sort it all out you may have a point! The Linguistic confusion between a Parish Council and a Parochial Church Council or a simple district as opposed to a District Council is beyond many residents let alone visitors. Towns have Mayors. Cities have Lord Mayors. A Lady Mayoress is not the female equivalent of a Lord Mayor but the consort of a Mayor if the mayor is a man. The Lord Mayor of London has no remit outside the 'square mile' of the City of London. The Mayor of London is in fact the First Minister of the (Greater) London Regional Government. 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. SignatureJohn Graney >>> "Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > important difference between British and American usage of the term > "City". Who said anything about America? > Not every town of any consequence in UK is called a city. Many large > urban areas are designated "Town". Reading is one example, there are > doubtless many others. Guildford. Kingston-upon Thames. Rochester [*] > When visiting the US I was surprised to see signs denoting the 'City > Limits' of communities that would be regarded as Villages or even > hamlets in this country. > > There are some places in UK that have, for historical reasons, > designations that do not seem to correspond to the size of the community Wells. Chichester. > but in the main Cities are bigger than towns, Towns are bigger than > Villages and Villages bigger then Hamlets. Towns or cities may have > Suburbs or Districts. London has its constituent London Boroughs which > have suburbs and districts of their own. You missed out Metropolitan Boroughs. > As far as local Government outside London goes things are far from > simple. The lowest level of Local Government is The Civil Parish, > Sometimes called a town council (which is nothing at all to do with a > church parish). They needn't exist, of course. > These operate under the District Councils and they take > their place under the County Councils. In some places County and > District Councils are combined into Unitary Authorities. Berkshire is an exception. > (In others the > powers of both are limited by the existence of National Parks). In > Scotland and Wales there are devolved national Governments. There may > soon be Regional Governments in England. It depends what you mean by Governments. I think you may be confused by the Regional Assemblies and the Government Offices. > There are no town or city police departments nor for the main part, > fire departments as these are organised on a county or regional basis. Or something in between, of course. > If you think this is all a terrible mess and wonder how we sort it all > out you may have a point! Who are the "you" of whom you speak? > The Linguistic confusion between a Parish Council and a Parochial Church > Council or a simple district as opposed to a District Council is beyond > many residents let alone visitors. > > Towns have Mayors. Cities have Lord Mayors. Not automatically. > A Lady Mayoress is not the > female equivalent of a Lord Mayor but the consort of a Mayor if the > mayor is a man. Strictly speaking, no. > The Lord Mayor of London has no remit outside the > 'square mile' of the City of London. The Mayor of London is in fact the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hope it makes the point that nothing is simple or straightforward in the > naming of territories in UK. I think you are making heavy weather of it. But here are a couple of conundrums: Why is Westminster a City, and how long has this been the case? [*] Why is Rochester no longer a City? SignatureJohn Briggs At 21:45:20 on Thu, 15 Jul 2004, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in <QVCJc.201$cb3.86@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>: >> Not every town of any consequence in UK is called a city. Many large >> urban areas are designated "Town". Reading is one example, there are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Wells. Chichester. >> but in the main Cities are bigger than towns, Towns are bigger than >> Villages and Villages bigger then Hamlets. Towns or cities may have >> Suburbs or Districts. London has its constituent London Boroughs which >> have suburbs and districts of their own. The definition always used to be that if it had a decent old cathedral, it was a city, and if it hadn't, it wasn't. As far as I know, the first part of that still holds true - no matter how small (e.g. Ely), if it's always had a cathedral, it's always been a city. (I don't think that building a brand-new cathedral automatically confers city status, so bad luck Liverpool, you can't claim a double. In fact, I think it has to be a diocesan cathedral, but I may be wrong here.) However, more recently there has been what amounts to a lottery held on irregular occasions, whereby one or two large towns or conurbations can win the right to be designated a city, despite not having the necessary cathedral. Not long ago Brighton-and-Hove applied, and got it, but it doesn't seem to have made much difference. Not all cities have Lord Mayors, but nothing that isn't a city has a Lord Mayor. There are, however, different rankings within the term of "Mayor", whereby a Borough Mayor outranks a Town Mayor, for example. 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? SignatureMolly Mockford, past Mayoress of Lewes I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 21:45:20 on Thu, 15 Jul 2004, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> > wrote in <QVCJc.201$cb3.86@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > how small (e.g. Ely), if it's always had a cathedral, it's always been a > city. You've overlooked what happened to Rochester. SignatureJohn Briggs At 22:27:50 on Thu, 15 Jul 2004, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in <GxDJc.615$HZ5.176@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>: >> The definition always used to be that if it had a decent old cathedral, >> it was a city, and if it hadn't, it wasn't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You've overlooked what happened to Rochester. I know nothing about Rochester. The one in Kent, or the other one? Presumably it is an exception to my "As far as I know". SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 22:27:50 on Thu, 15 Jul 2004, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> > wrote in <GxDJc.615$HZ5.176@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I know nothing about Rochester. The one in Kent, or the other one? > Presumably it is an exception to my "As far as I know". Kent, not Northumberland. The Department for Constitution Affairs have wrested control of city status from the Privy Council: http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm The website contains an outright lie: "City status is not, and never has been, a right which can be claimed by a town fulfilling certain conditions." But I don't expect anyone will be resigning over it. (It has a direct bearing on how Westminster became a city.) SignatureJohn Briggs On Thursday, in article <ICTqISb4Fv9AFwDI@molly.mockford> > 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"? :-) SignatureBrian {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." > On Thursday, in article <ICTqISb4Fv9AFwDI@molly.mockford> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Briggs On Friday, in article <MZUJc.261$%B6.193@newsfe5-win.ntli.net> > 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 :-( SignatureBrian {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." > However, more recently there has been what amounts to a lottery held on > irregular occasions, whereby one or two large towns or conurbations can > win the right to be designated a city, despite not having the necessary > cathedral. Not long ago Brighton-and-Hove applied, and got it, but it > doesn't seem to have made much difference. It makes no difference whatsoever. A local authority in England has no separate or different powers because it is entitled "City". It is simply an honorary title. The meaning of the word "city" as opposed to its legal definition is "a large town". However, the title has stuck to some towns which were relatively large in the middle ages but have stayed the same size while other places have increased in size beyond them. A large town in the middle ages would inevitably have had a cathedral in it, hence the notion that it's the presence of the cathedral that gives the right to the title "City". In some cases this means that the title "City" is attached to a local authority which is actually just legally a parish council i.e. one which has very limited powers with most local government function being performed by other authorities of which it forms part. In other cases, the title "City" is attached to local authorities where there is no intermediate structure between them and the national state. Matthew Huntbach >> However, more recently there has been what amounts to a lottery held on >> irregular occasions, whereby one or two large towns or conurbations can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that it's the presence of the cathedral that gives the right to the title > "City". It wasn't just a notion - I hope I have demonstrated that it was an automatic equation until at least 1836, and probably 1888. SignatureJohn Briggs > Why is Westminster a City, and how long has this been the case? In 1540 Henry VIII declared Westminster Abbey to be a Cathedral, and so Westminster became a City. But in 1550 the Abbey became a Collegiate Church instead, but Westminster rtaetained a sort of "honorary City" status. It was given its first Royal Charter by Elizabeth I in 1586, and I remember the 1986 celebrations what was then called regared as the 400th anniversary of the founding of the City of Westminster. For many years the chief citizn of Westmonster didn't have the title "Mayor" but "High Steward of Westminster Abbey", an office frequently held by senior Officers of State. It was given its first Mayor in 1900, and the post was up-graded to Lord Mayor in 1966. > [*] Why is Rochester no longer a City? That's ben a bit on-and-off for the last 30 years. The 1974 Local Government Reorganisation turned it into part of Medway District Council, but later that year it was given back its city status by Royal Letters Patent. In 1982 a new Royal Charter renamed it as the "City of Rochester-upon-Medway". A further boat of reorganisation in 1998 merged it with Gillingham as Medway Council. What next? -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die - they simply lose their class. > In 1540 Henry VIII declared Westminster Abbey to be a Cathedral, and so > Westminster became a City. But in 1550 the Abbey became a Collegiate Church > instead, but Westminster rtaetained a sort of "honorary City" status. And, along with Temple Church, St George's Chapel and others, Westminster Abbey remains a "royal peculiar" outwith episcopal control. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist2_prog5a.shtml >> Why is Westminster a City, and how long has this been the case? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Rochester-upon-Medway". A further boat of reorganisation in 1998 merged > it with Gillingham as Medway Council. What next? Stalemate. There is no local government entity up which city status could be conferred. Medway wants to be a city in its own right, not as Rochester. Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that isn't a city. SignatureJohn Briggs > 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. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die - they simply lose their class. >> Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that >> isn't a city. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. Yes, of course. I was contrasting them with modern cathedrals - although the point at which having a cathedral ceased to confer city status is hard to determine. Some point during the nineteenth century, I would imagine. Ripon (1836) and Wakefield (1888) are cities, but Southwell (1884) isn't. Wakefield's status was conferred simultaneously to, but separately from, its acquiring a cathedral. Ancient non-cities would include Sherborne, Old Sarum and Dorchester on Thames. SignatureJohn Briggs 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? John > 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. SignatureJohn Briggs >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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: SignatureJohn >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > He knows from some of the others that pointless pedantry is still alive > in this country. Who said anything about Americans? SignatureJohn Briggs On Friday, in article <8U90b8DK4D+AFw9f@soloriens.co.uk> > 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. SignatureBrian {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." >> Meaning that Rochester is now the only ancient cathedral city that >> isn't a city. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 SignatureJoachim > Whilst all of the above is accurate as far as I know there is an > important difference between British and American usage of the term [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > community but in the main Cities are bigger than towns, Towns are > bigger than Villages and Villages bigger then Hamlets. The smaller Cities are usually so designated because they have Cathedrals. > London has its constituent London Boroughs ... Two of which (The City of Westminster and the City of London) are also cities, just to confuse you even more. And at two of them (Kensington & Chelsea and Kingston on Thames) are officially designated "Royal Borough". -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Me cogitare credo ergo me esse credo. (Rainy-Day-Carts) >> Whilst all of the above is accurate as far as I know there is an >> important difference between British and American usage of the term [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The smaller Cities are usually so designated because they have Cathedrals. Careful :-) >> London has its constituent London Boroughs ... > > Two of which (The City of Westminster and the City of London) are also > cities, just to confuse you even more. And at two of them (Kensington & > Chelsea and Kingston on Thames) are officially designated "Royal Borough". And Kingston upon Thames is the County Town of Surrey. SignatureJohn Briggs "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. Matti > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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'. SignatureJohn Briggs "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > '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. Matti > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... >>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Briggs "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > >>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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 > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... >>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Briggs > 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. >> A bit of both, really. I don't see how you can have a 'county town' >> which isn't the administrative HQ. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Briggs > As far as local Government outside London goes things are far from > simple. The lowest level of Local Government is The Civil Parish, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Scotland and Wales there are devolved national Governments. There may > soon be Regional Governments in England. The problem is that local government in England has evolved over a period of centuries. Historically, England was divided into counties. However, when county councils were formally set up in 1888, many larger towns were given "county borough" status, that is the county councils provided services only to those parts of the historical county that were not covered by a county borough. The parts of the counties which were not county boroughs were divided into smaller authorities, "districts", which provided some services while the counties provided others. In the county boroughs, all local government services were provided by the county borough council. The local government reforms of 1974 were intended to rationalise this, introducing a system whereby the whole country was divided into counties, and counties into districts with the counties probiding some sorts of services and the districts others. Some parts of the country (the larger urban conurbations) were given "metropolitan counties" in which the subdivisions were called "boroughs". In the metropolitan counties the division of services between the county and its subdivision was different than the others, with more services being provided by the borooughs rather than the counties. The 1974 reorganisation was widely resented. This was because in many cases it abolished local government uits that had existed for a long time and to which people had an emotional attachment. Also, districts which formerly had county borough status resented losing local control of services to the county council. Thus since this time there have been various piecemeal reorganisations whcih have effectively restored county boroughs. A parish or town council covers part of a district council's area. They exist only where there is a local desire to have them and have very little power. > Towns have Mayors. Cities have Lord Mayors. A Lady Mayoress is not the > female equivalent of a Lord Mayor but the consort of a Mayor if the > mayor is a man. The Lord Mayor of London has no remit outside the > 'square mile' of the City of London. The Mayor of London is in fact the > First Minister of the (Greater) London Regional Government. Up till recently, local government had evolved to the point where the position of Mayor was largely an honorary one. The Mayor was the chairman of council meetings, and represented the council on ceremonial occasions, but had no special powers and was not (unlike the situation in many other countries) "in charge" of the council. The mayor was elected to this position annually by the councillors and council policy wass decided by a majority of the whole council. Recent reforms have allowed councils to opt to have an "executive mayor". When a council chooses this option (it must hold a referendum to do so) the mayor *does* have control of the council and is elected in a borough-wide popular election. Having an executive mayor means the only control councillors have is the right to overturn the mayor's decision on a two-thirds majority. Only a few local authorities have decided to have an executive mayor, but the new London government was set up with one. The Mayor of London is thus more like a president than a "first minister". Those who favour executve mayors often sell the idea by saying it's "American style" which seems to mean we are supposed to think its automatically a good thing. Matthew Huntbach >> As far as local Government outside London goes things are far from >> simple. The lowest level of Local Government is The Civil Parish, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > boroughs, all local government services were provided by the county > borough council. In other words, 'county boroughs' were given the status of counties, which many cities had already acquired by then. > The local government reforms of 1974 were intended to rationalise this, > introducing a system whereby the whole country was divided into counties, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > various piecemeal reorganisations whcih have effectively restored county > boroughs. The system that was abolished had only existed since 1888, of course. It is misleading to say that 'county boroughs' have been restored. What has happened is that the new unitary authorities (except in Berkshire, of course) have been given the status of post-1974 counties. > A parish or town council covers part of a district council's area. They > exist only where there is a local desire to have them and have very little [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "American style" which seems to mean we are supposed to think its > automatically a good thing. There are vested interests pushing such thoughts, of course. SignatureJohn Briggs "Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote... > >"Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote... > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > reorganisation in 1995) at > http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/localgovt.html Yes, I'm not disputing it in a local government context. I think we need a Campaign for Real Counties. Matti > "Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote... >>> "Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, I'm not disputing it in a local government context. I think we > need a Campaign for Real Counties. Best not to. It already exists, but there is excessive reactionary nationalism involved, with an unpleasant implication of racism. SignatureJohn Briggs |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.