In article ,
(David Hansen) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:07:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

I suspect it has something to do with the length of time the
administrative concept of counties has existed. Not only that, until
relatively recently the administrative concepts did not change
boundaries too often.

Counties had no clear boundaries in the modern sense before County
Councils were created in 1889.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 14:05:21
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
Counties had no clear boundaries in the modern sense before County
Councils were created in 1889.

So what are all those maps I have framed on my wall? Similar to this one
from 1610:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb..../genfiles/COU_
files/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 14:05:21
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
Counties had no clear boundaries in the modern sense before County
Councils were created in 1889.

So what are all those maps I have framed on my wall? Similar to this one
from 1610:


http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....nfiles/COU_fil
es/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm

Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 14:36:29
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm

Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

Most of the maps show it on the border, inconsistently one side or the
other. But whatever the answer is, the line between Cambridgshire and
Hertfordshire was in the same place (give or take a mile) all along.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
14:36:29
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....enfiles/COU_fi
les/ENG/CAM/speed_camshire_1610.htm

Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

Most of the maps show it on the border, inconsistently one side or the
other. But whatever the answer is, the line between Cambridgshire and
Hertfordshire was in the same place (give or take a mile) all along.

You need to consider the significance of the line, though. Counties had
little administrative role before 1889.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:

On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". Bizarre. What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

tom

--
If you had a chance to do any experiment you pleased, unconstrained by
any considerations of humanity or decency, what would you choose?

On 21 July, 22:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 21 July, 11:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is
not identical to the set of geographic boundaries.

Aren't all boundaries, natural or artificial, in a sense "geographic"?

Sigh. *For some reason, people think that previous government boundaries
are geographic, or somehow real, but current ones are not.

You get arguments like "Altrincham is administratively in Greater
Manchester, but it's geographically in Cheshire". *Bizarre. *What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

So nothing to do with geographical or administrative boundaries then.

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

--
Dave,
Frodsham
Cheshire

David Jackson wrote in
:

The message . li
from Tom Anderson contains these words:

What do
they think "Cheshire" is beyond an administrative or government
concept?

An ethnic group. Whether this belief is correct or not, i cannot say.

A very superior ethnic group!

Amen to that.

--
James
originally Stockport
Cheshire

In message , at 15:23:39
on Tue, 21 Jul 2009, remarked:
Tell us which County Royston was in pre-1889 then.

Most of the maps show it on the border, inconsistently one side or the
other. But whatever the answer is, the line between Cambridgshire and
Hertfordshire was in the same place (give or take a mile) all along.

You need to consider the significance of the line, though. Counties had
little administrative role before 1889.

What significance are you hinting at? Court catchment areas spring to
mind, as well as the "Shires" made up from a collection of Hundreds, and
controlled by the Reeve (later Sheriff from Shire-reeve).

Getting back to Royston, it's said that: "Royston is partly in the Odsey
Hundred of Hertfordshire, and partly in the Armingford Hundred of
Cambridgeshire."

Many of the maps I looked at yesterday appeared to have the border going
down the original line of the A505, which is as useful a geographic
boundary as any other (it's nowadays following the A505 *bypass*).

And *bingo* Wonkypedia says: "The Icknield Way used to form part of the
boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and at one time
Royston was cut in two by this boundary."
--
Roland Perry