Mr. Southall wrote of the GenMaps list of old maps of Britain, London,
etc.(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genmaps/):
> Oh no, not another on-line system that seems to think that the British
> local government system operated in a state of unchanging grace until the
> blue meanies changed it in 1974 (see also the Association of British
> Counties ...
As an American doing research remotely into medieval English history, and
recently working intensively on topographical matters, I'd have to say that
I have been bewildered at the number of administrative changes made in
Britain since 1964-65. Thus I am grateful for historical material,
websites, etc. that use the "traditional" counties to identify locations.
Of course, I have to do use historical counties in the main text of what I'm
writing to avoid being anachronistic.
I draw a big distinction between where a place *is* and who administers it.
I believe "is-ness" is relatively fixed and a matter of consensus, while
administrations come and go, as all the changes since 1964-65 indicate.
Guisborough is Guisborough and should *be* in the North Riding of Yorkshire
even if it's been stuck--at the moment--within an unwieldy administrative
unit called Redcar and Cleveland.
I can understand why the OS has to use whatever system is current but why
can't it also use a parallel system of traditional identifiers--eg,
"...Kirklees (historic: Yorkshire, West Riding)."
For one thing, relying on traditional identifiers would surely make
librarianship and associated work easier.
Al Magary
(rattling my Times and getting apoplectic here San Francisco)
|