"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:

By the by I'm not sure North Greenwich station should really be have
been named as such, it should perhaps have been named Greenwich
Peninsula instead.

Why? There was long gone North Greenwich station (closed 1926) on the
southern tip of the Isle of Dogs over the river from Greenwich - see
the Disused Stations website [1].

So Ryanair style dubious naming was in practice way back then!

This mirrors the north-of-the-river
naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper.

Yes but wasn't North Woolwich administratively part of Woolwich? I don't
think it was part of the Hams pre 1965.

It was indeed in Woolwich Borough in LCC days. IIRC North Woolwich was part
of Kent before the LCC was set up, and indeed, part of the Kingdom of Kent
when it was independent of the rest of England in around the 8th Century.

Peter

In article ,
(Peter Masson) wrote:

This mirrors the north-of-the-river naming of North Woolwich,
across the Thames from Woolwich proper.

Yes but wasn't North Woolwich administratively part of Woolwich?
I don't think it was part of the Hams pre 1965.

It was indeed in Woolwich Borough in LCC days. IIRC North Woolwich
was part of Kent before the LCC was set up, and indeed, part of the
Kingdom of Kent when it was independent of the rest of England in
around the 8th Century.

I thought North Woolwich was once South of the river. I.e. the river has
moved over the centuries in this area.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

I thought North Woolwich was once South of the river. I.e. the river has
moved over the centuries in this area.

As far as recorded names are concerned, the explanation is quite simple
- North Woolwich was a manor granted to William the Conqueror's henchman
Hamon, Sheriff of Kent, and was thus recorded in the Domesday Book (and
ever since until modern times) as a detached part of Kent.

--
Paul Terry

In message , Peter Masson
writes

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:

By the by I'm not sure North Greenwich station should really be have
been named as such, it should perhaps have been named Greenwich
Peninsula instead.

Why? There was long gone North Greenwich station (closed 1926) on the
southern tip of the Isle of Dogs over the river from Greenwich - see
the Disused Stations website [1].

So Ryanair style dubious naming was in practice way back then!

This mirrors the north-of-the-river
naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper.

Yes but wasn't North Woolwich administratively part of Woolwich? I don't
think it was part of the Hams pre 1965.

It was indeed in Woolwich Borough in LCC days. IIRC North Woolwich was part
of Kent before the LCC was set up, and indeed, part of the Kingdom of Kent
when it was independent of the rest of England in around the 8th Century.

I have always wondered how that curious administrative situation came
about and have never been able to find a definitive reply. Indeed, I
wasn't even sure that it had been "tidied up" with the 1965 local
government reorganisation.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:52:34 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Peter Masson
writes

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:

By the by I'm not sure North Greenwich station should really be have
been named as such, it should perhaps have been named Greenwich
Peninsula instead.

Why? There was long gone North Greenwich station (closed 1926) on the
southern tip of the Isle of Dogs over the river from Greenwich - see
the Disused Stations website [1].

So Ryanair style dubious naming was in practice way back then!

This mirrors the north-of-the-river
naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper.

Yes but wasn't North Woolwich administratively part of Woolwich? I don't
think it was part of the Hams pre 1965.

It was indeed in Woolwich Borough in LCC days. IIRC North Woolwich was part
of Kent before the LCC was set up, and indeed, part of the Kingdom of Kent
when it was independent of the rest of England in around the 8th Century.

I have always wondered how that curious administrative situation came
about and have never been able to find a definitive reply. Indeed, I
wasn't even sure that it had been "tidied up" with the 1965 local
government reorganisation.

Like other anomolies it probably goes back to long before local
authorities were invented and boundaries were defined by the local
nobility or the Crown. In the case of North Woolwich it's possibly the
latter in association with the ferry crossing and various ancient
naval activities in the area, although ISTR the surrounding area was
originally marshland which might have presented a more impenetrable
boundary than the Thames itself resulting in access being easier via
the Kent side and the land thus being more easily treated as part of
Kent.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|