GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1021574569
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: County vs. Shire
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:42:49 +0100
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"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."
Not true at all.
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....
"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]
"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." -- Gabriel
"Swordfish"  -- 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
| In message <email@example.com>
| "David Greene" <> wrote:
| > Maybe not, but this discussion started with the statement that such
| > 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
| > This usage can be found throughout British antiquarian publications
| > 19th century and certainly much later. What we are dealing with here
| > "scholarly usage," not modern idiom. It might be argued that the
| > genealogical scholarship should yield to current usage. But no one
| > suggested that yet.
| I am not so sure about "scholarship". I even found my grandfather
| it in his genealogy writings... He was copying what he found to be
| fashion, of Burke.
| > What has been suggested, even in the posting below, is that American
| > know what they are talking about when they use "co." before the
| > some of the traditional English counties.
| Until this discussion started, I am reasonably sure our distant
| 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,
| > someone is able to provide a good argument why a scholarly usage
| > place should yield to "current usage."
| It was merely a genealogical fashion for about a hundred years and it
| perhaps time for the fashion to change. I note with interest that
| at least of the forthcoming Debretts Peerage and Baronetage for 2002
| 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