In article , (Robin) wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\09\26 20:49, Roy Badami wrote:
On 26/09/10 20:21, wrote:

At least one change I know about is missing. Mercier Road, SW15
where I was brought up was once named Amersham Road. When I was
young the former name was given on the street name plates.

One of the changes mentioned elsewhere in this thread is missing,
too -- that of High Street, Kensington becoming Kensington High
Street. (The list includes similar name changes for many other High
Streets, but not that one.)

That may be 'cos it (allegedly) happened much sooner - in 1912
according to

http://www.maps.thehunthouse.com/Str..._London_Street
_Names.htm#H

The list also doesn't mention Newcourt Street, which still bears signs
saying "New Street".


http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll....003911,0.0096
45&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.532298,-0.168321&panoid=U72s8ULcA17EphHV7iDWWg&cbp=
12,108.18,,2,-7.4

Is it possible that old sign dates back to the 19th century? The
Metropolitan Board of Works engaged in a good many changes of name
during its tenure.

Doesn't explain Mercier/Amersham Road, though. That showed its former name
into the 1950s.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Doesn't explain Mercier/Amersham Road, though. That showed its former
name into the 1950s.

it is not given to many of us to be perfect: neither I nor those sites
claimed to have every change.

You did not indicate when you were young - ie the earliest you know that
the name was Mercier. Other things being equal the change might have
taken place during the war; or have been missed by Rayment. I
can tell you that it was Mercier by 1945 but nothing off the cuff beyond
that.

We do carry out paid research on occasion though, so if you really want
to know PM me and I'll quote you a no-find no-fee price.
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

On 27/09/10 22:57, Robin wrote:

We do carry out paid research on occasion though, so if you really want
to know PM me and I'll quote you a no-find no-fee price.

I suspect that many (most?) people here are reading via the newsgroup
(rather than the bidirectionally gatewayed web forum) so PM would make
no sense for them.

And given your post (at least in the USENET world) appears to come from
a bogus e-mail address, they'd have no way of contacting you directly if
they wanted to.

-roy

Roy Badami wrote on 27 September 2010 23:51:59 ...
On 27/09/10 22:57, Robin wrote:

We do carry out paid research on occasion though, so if you really want
to know PM me and I'll quote you a no-find no-fee price.

I suspect that many (most?) people here are reading via the newsgroup
(rather than the bidirectionally gatewayed web forum) so PM would make
no sense for them.

And given your post (at least in the USENET world) appears to come from
a bogus e-mail address, they'd have no way of contacting you directly if
they wanted to.

His email address is given in his sig.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 28/09/10 00:13, Richard J. wrote:

His email address is given in his sig.

Good point - I'll shut up now.

-roy

In article , (Robin)
wrote:

Doesn't explain Mercier/Amersham Road, though. That showed its former
name into the 1950s.

it is not given to many of us to be perfect: neither I nor those sites
claimed to have every change.

You did not indicate when you were young - ie the earliest you know that
the name was Mercier. Other things being equal the change might have
taken place during the war; or have been missed by Rayment. I
can tell you that it was Mercier by 1945 but nothing off the cuff beyond
that.

We do carry out paid research on occasion though, so if you really want
to know PM me and I'll quote you a no-find no-fee price.

My parents moved into the road in 1950 when I was very young. My earliest
recollections are either than a street name plate showed the former name
or else an oldish atlas did the same though most only showed the current
name. So I guess it wasn't renamed after the war. It's certainly been
Mercier Road all my life.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , David
Cantrell wrote:
The first part of the postcode is used to direct mail to a local sorting
office.

That was never the case, though I think that originally all destinations
with the same outward code (the first part) went to the same office. But
many outward codes might go to the same place. Nowadays there's no need
for that simplification and it is no longer applied - an outward code
can be split between sorting offices if operationally convenient.

The second part of the postcode directs mail to
an individual postie's round,

The inward code (the second part) directs to a specific street or part
of a street. There are never more than 80 individual "delivery points"
(e.g. houses) in a given code. One round will contain many codes (which
might not all be in the same outward code); the idea is that rounds can
be reorganized without having to recode anyone.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message , David
Cantrell wrote:
The first part of the postcode is used to direct mail to a local
sorting office.

That was never the case, though I think that originally all
destinations with the same outward code (the first part) went to the
same office. But many outward codes might go to the same place.
Nowadays there's no need for that simplification and it is no longer
applied - an outward code can be split between sorting offices if
operationally convenient.
The second part of the postcode directs mail to
an individual postie's round,

The inward code (the second part) directs to a specific street or part
of a street. There are never more than 80 individual "delivery points"
(e.g. houses) in a given code. One round will contain many codes
(which might not all be in the same outward code); the idea is that
rounds can be reorganized without having to recode anyone.

Welcome back - we miss you !

Jim Hawkins