GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2003-07 > 1057847829

From: John M Chapman <>
Subject: Re: counties; was Interesting children
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:37:09 +0100
References: <%9TKa.2736$><><LwycqXAgDwC$> <><hp0Pa.588$><>

In article <>, david56
<> writes
> spake thus:
>> "dcw" <> wrote in message news:...
>> > In article <LwycqXAgDwC$>,
>> > Roy Bailey <> wrote:
>> >
>> > >You know, I never had so much of a problem with the new 1974 counties as
>> most
>> > >people. It seemed sensible to me to make a local authority area out of a
>> large
>> > >conurbation such as Bristol, because over the years its catchment area
>> had
>> > >spread out into the adjoining counties of Somerset and Glos. The same
>> reasoning
>> > >applied to Tyne and Wear and Cleveland, and, to a lesser extent,
>> Berkshire,
>> > >where we lost the Oxford-looking section north of the Downs.
>> >
>> > And, to add insult to injury, got Slough in exchange.
>> To be consistent, in 1974 Berkshire should've been given all of Bucks south
>> of the Chiltern watershed, as well as the Henley area of Oxon.
>> And in the 1990s review Slough should've gone back to Bucks. It's unitary
>> now so its ties to Reading have gone.
>Except those ecclesiastical. A woman called a radio phone-in to
>offer support to the Bishop of Reading (before he quit), saying that
>she lived in Slough which is part of the diocese of Reading.

I dont thinks so - The area of the Bishop of Reading is the Arcdeaconary
of Berkshire which includes old Berkshire Wantage, Faringdon etc but not
new Berkshire (Slough)

John M Chapman

This thread: