| |
|
Supporters of the traditional county boundaries argue that they have never ceased to exist, although if they do exist they do so in name only.
Some traditionalists prefer to use traditional counties for geographic purposes rather than administrative ones.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Critics 3 List of the traditional counties 4 External link |
Supporters of the historic Counties maintain that the counties are geographic and cultural entities too important to be changed every time there is a local government reorganisation.
More significantly, the legal argument is made that the legislation of 1888, which introduced new counties and altered some county borders, referred to these as "administrative counties" and specifically provided for the continuation of the traditional county boundaries. Traditionalists point out that all subsequent legislation altered not the traditional counties, but the "administrative counties" created by the 1888 Act, even if subsequent Acts simply referred to them as "counties".
At the time of the massive local government reorganisation of 1974 the Government made the following statement:
Given frequent confusion regarding the status of historic counties, many societies and lobby groups have been formed in their defence. These include Yorkshire's White Rose Society, the Campaign for real Warwickshire, and the Huntingdonshire Society. The campaigns for Rutland, Peterborough and Herefordshire to be made once more administrative counties did succeed and these areas were made independent of Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and Hereford and Worcester.
See also: Administrative counties of England, Ceremonial counties of England, Subdivisions of England, Traditional counties of Wales, Traditional counties of Scotland.
Critics point out that the 1974 disclaimer was merely a government statement, and thus had no legal effect. The 1972 legislation doesn't use the term "administrative counties" used in the 1888 Act, except in order to define the borders of the new administrative divisions called "counties" (with reference to existing administrative counties and county boroughs). Not only is there no room for traditional counties in the new scheme, but the part of the 1888 Act that preserved the traditional counties has long been repealed (though there is no specific abolition of the traditional counties themselves).
Further, the idea that historic counties are 'immutable' is said to be spurious. For example, there was a reorganisation in 1844, which reverted some exclaves (such as a large part of County Durham within Northumberland) to their host territories - and if the 1888 legislation left the counties that existed in 1887 untouched, then they refer to the post-1844 versions.
An important argument that critics put forward is that in many places administrative counties, not traditional counties, are the default geographic and cultural reference points of the local population. They point especially to the metropolitan counties such as West Midlands and Greater Manchester, where people have much more in common with each other than they do with those in the rump county. Certainly the majority of councils in such conurbations quote their address as being in the administrative county. For example Birmingham is nearly always referred to as being in the West Midlands, rather than Warwickshire; certainly most Birmingham residents would not regard their city as being in Warwickshire.
Even in the shire counties, not many people would remember that Abingdon was once the county town of Berkshire, or that Eton is traditionally in Buckinghamshire.
Some of the traditional counties have subdivisions:
See also: Association of British Counties
Supporters
Supporters of historic counties point out that there are many examples of towns and villages which have stated unequivocably their presence in their historic County. Critics
List of the traditional counties
Subdivisions
External link