GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1020892058
From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: _Cheshire_...
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 21:07:38 GMT
References: <5B26630DC488D411AB6200D0B7C9FF49DBD04E@DCSRV09>, <YkaC8.9263$C8.firstname.lastname@example.org>, <ntaylor-5C2CBA.email@example.com>
In article <>,
Nathaniel Taylor <> wrote:
>No one has brought up the old constitutional status and name of Cheshire
>as the 'County Palatine of Chester'. This is a different sort of
>distinction (I think) than the semantic one enjoyed by 'County Durham',
>but is authentically English and historically accurate and represents no
>'Americanism' or other genealogical ignorance. Could someone who knows
>post a brief statement: why does Durham get to have 'county' in its name
>when others do not, and what is the history of the entity known as the
>'County Palatine of Chester'?
Dave Greene corrected me: Durham was also a 'county palatine'; so
'County Durham' but not 'County Chester' may be just due to onomastic
evolution? Still like to see a good post on this...
|Re: _Cheshire_... by Nathaniel Taylor <>|