GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1021574569


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: County vs. Shire
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:42:49 +0100
References: <1021492294.8497.0.nnrp-01.3e3106c9@news.demon.co.uk>, <abugr0$7s2$1@iac5.navix.net>, <12c56b374b.tim@southfrm.demon.co.uk>


"Until this discussion started, I am reasonably sure our distant cousins
across the pond were not aware that this style was [sic] not current in
England. Now they know they are using a style that is an anacronism."
[sic]

Tim Powys-Lybbe
------------------------

Not true at all.

False Premise.

Anserine and Supercilious.

So is the phrase "our distant cousins across the pond..."

It reminds one of Neville Chamberlain talking about Czechoslovakia ----
and we all remember how badly that turned out....

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

"Have you ever heard of Harry Houdini? Well, he wasn't like today's
magicians only interested in television ratings. He was an artist. He
could make an elephant disappear in a theater filled with people. And
do you know how he did that?"

"Misdirection." -- Gabriel [John Travolta]

"What the [----] are you talking about?" -- Stanley [Hugh Jackman]

"Misdirection."

"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." -- Gabriel
[John Travolta]

"Swordfish" [2001] -- Directed By Dominic Sena -- Written By Skip Woods

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor.

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <> wrote in message
news:...

| In message <abugr0$7s2$1@iac5.navix.net>
| "David Greene" <> wrote:
|
| > Maybe not, but this discussion started with the statement that such
a
| > use of "co." was an "American affectation."
|
| Certainly my statement was that it was an _English_ affectation. I do
| not believe it was ever current parlance.
|
| > That it is--or has been--instead an English usage has been proven
| > completely.
|
| Agreed, it was affected by various English writers in the 19th
century.
|
| > This usage can be found throughout British antiquarian publications
in the
| > 19th century and certainly much later. What we are dealing with here
is
| > "scholarly usage," not modern idiom. It might be argued that the
language of
| > genealogical scholarship should yield to current usage. But no one
has
| > suggested that yet.
|
| I am not so sure about "scholarship". I even found my grandfather
using
| it in his genealogy writings... He was copying what he found to be
the
| fashion, of Burke.
|
| > What has been suggested, even in the posting below, is that American
don't
| > know what they are talking about when they use "co." before the
names of
| > some of the traditional English counties.
|
| Until this discussion started, I am reasonably sure our distant
cousins
| across the pond were not aware that this style was not current in
| England. Now they know they are using a style that is an anacronism.
|
| > Since this has been disproven over and over, let's call a halt,
unless
| > someone is able to provide a good argument why a scholarly usage
long in
| > place should yield to "current usage."
|
| It was merely a genealogical fashion for about a hundred years and it
is
| perhaps time for the fashion to change. I note with interest that
some
| at least of the forthcoming Debretts Peerage and Baronetage for 2002
has
| dropped this (ghastly) 19th century style and uses modern - and old -
| speech; the drop may have occurred a long time ago, of course.
|
| --
| Tim Powys-Lybbe
| For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org



This thread: