In article , Ian Jelf
writes
Wow. Then I stand corrected.

It surprised me when I first came across the concept (the County of
Peterborough).

I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether
or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being
part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true?

There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial
purposes".

Lord-lieutenancies are defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997. This has
its own definition of "county"; in England this *mostly* follows the
1972 county boundaries (as amended from time to time), but has some
special cases listed in Schedule 1. For example, the lieutenancy county
(my term) of Bedfordshire contains both the County of Bedfordshire and
the County of Luton, while the County of Stockton-on-Tees is split by
the river Tees; the northern half being in the lieutenancy county of
Durham and the southern half in North Yorkshire.

Shrievalities (is that the word?) are defined by section 38 of the
Sheriffs Act 1887. Again this follows the 1972 counties except where
modified by Schedule 2A (created by S.I. 1995 No. 1748); I have not
attempted to determine where the shrievalities don't match the
lieutenancies.

S.I. 1997 No. 1992 amends both schedules in question to include the
entries:
Essex Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock

(and, for Roland:
Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire and Nottingham
).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: