Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Priority: NORMAL
X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
To take up two of Humphrey Southall's points:
> Youngs's entries for individual parishes, sometimes say that a parish changed
> the county it was in after c.1850. My interpretation of these entries,
> which seem to mainly concern changes in the 1890s, should be read as about
> the relationship between parishes and Administrative Counties, which were
> being set up around then. DO PEOPLE AGREE?
Yes: I don't know any cases of parishes 'changing counties' between
1844 and 1888. (If anyone does lnow of such an instance, please let me
know!)
> WERE ANCIENT COUNTIES _EVER_ ABOLISHED, or should we treat them as
> continuing to exist up to the present? (At present, we are effectively
> taking the latter approach.) IS THE SAME TRUE OF "ANCIENT DISTRICTS"?
> (i.e. Hundreds, Liberties, etc.) If we treat these units as continuing to
> exist, should we treat their boundaries as being unchanging post c.1850?
My view is that they continue to exist, whatever the government of the
day might do in the way of 'administrative', 'registration',
'ceremonial' counties, etc, and they should have the advantage of
permanency, which the various administrative and 'geographical'
counties used by e.g. the OS since 1888 have not had.
Richard Oliver
-------------------
Richard Oliver, B.A., D.Phil., F.B.Cart.S.,
School of Geography & Archaeology
University of Exeter
Exeter, EX4 4RJ
[log in to unmask]
|