Talk:County of London

Tower Hamlets

Isn't Tower Hamlets a borough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichiganDan (talk • contribs) 06:51, 12 November 2004.

Created since the County of London was decommisioned.

It was a parliamentary borough between 1832 and 1884. john k 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Old counties

I have a question, however - can anyone identify which boroughs came from which traditional counties? At a guess, I'd say the ones north of the Thames (which I'm assuming from the map are City of London, Westminster, Holborn, Finsbury, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Stepney, Poplar, Hackney, Stoke Newington, Islington, St Pancras, Hampstead, St Marylebone, Paddington, Kensington, Hammersmith, Fulham, and Chelsea) were part of Middlesex, and that those south of it were divided between Kent and Surrey, with probably Deptford, Lewisham, Woolwich, and Greenwich from Kent, and the rest (Bermondsey, Southwark, Camberwell, Lambeth, Battersea, and Wandsworth) from Surrey. This is based on the fact that, as I understand it, the Thames was the boundary, and that I know Southwark at least was in Surrey (it was a Surrey parliamentary borough). Can anyone confirm or deny this? john k 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of my guesswork seems confirmed by looking at the articles on the various places - it gives Camberwell and Bermondsey as Surrey, Poplar and Fulham as Middlesex, and Deptford for Kent...shall I include it in the article? john k 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are broadly right about the boroughs north of the Thames, with the vital exceptions of the Cities of Westminster and London. The City of London (which is not a borough) has never been part of Middlesex, and Westminster was a separate entity for centuries before 1889. Tarquin Binary 12:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See Metropolis Management Act 1855 for the parishes and counties that were to be become the County of London. For the parishes in each of the boroughs themselves see London Government Act 1899 Lozleader 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that Westminster was not administered as part of Middlesex, but wasn't it geographically part of Middlesex? I thought pretty much every place in England was geographically assigned to one of the 39 counties. Even Bristol was technically part of Gloucestershire, for instance, even though it's never been administered as such (or, at least, hasn't for about as long as Westminster hasn't been administered by Middlesex). john k 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you were talking about administration because of the context of this piece. It seems the answer is - yes and no: according to WP - City of London - the City is a ceremonial county in its own right, unsurprisingly (that makes 40 counties, then). City of Westminster does not give a ceremonial county, but its constituent parts - see Bayswater - do give Middlesex. Tarquin Binary 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The City of London is currently a ceremonial county in its own right. But so is Bristol. And in the past, various other cities have been as well (see Lists of Lord Lieutenancies). Also, the 40th county of England was arguably Monmouthshire, which was technically part of England until the 1960s. john k 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Westminster gives Middlesex as the traditional (not ceremonial) county. Remember that traditional and ceremonial counties are separate. A ceremonial county is one that has its own Lord Lieutenant. This often differs from the traditional counties, which are essentially the English counties as they existed prior to the creation of the County of London in 1865. john k 22:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anomaly of West Ham and points East - these were part of Essex (with exception of North Woolwich. It may have been that which prevented their inclusion. East Ham had only just started to become a built up area at the time.

Constituencies as defined 1885

There was no alteration of boundaries of constituencies as defined 1885 until 1918, and I am wondering what might be meant if a constituency of the period is listed in a reference work as a division of eg Tower Hamlets. Was there a Tower Hamlets 'vestry' in 1885? Or a Battersea and Clapham vestry? Laurel Bush 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Nope, they are divisions of parliamentary boroughs, which were groupings of civil parishes. Just like parliamentary counties, boroughs could be divided into two or more divisions. For local government they were administered by various different vestries and district boards created by the Metropolis Management Act 1855. However the different systems did not correspond. To take the two parliamentary boroughs you mentioned:

• Tower Hamlets (a parliamentary borough of Middlesex)
  • Bow and Bromley Division: parishes of Bow and part of Bromley (part of Poplar District)
  • Limehouse Division: parishes of Limehouse, Ratcliffe, Shadwell (all part of Limehouse District)
  • Mile End Division: the North and East Wards of Mile End Old Town (vestry)
  • Poplar Division: Poplar and part of Bromley (part of Poplar District)
  • St George Division: St George in the East (Vestry), Wapping (part of Limehouse District)
  • Stepney Division: Centre, West and South wards of Mile End Old Town (vestry)
  • Whitechapel Division: Holy Trinity Minories, Mile End New Town, Norton Folgate, Old Artillery Ground, St Botolph without Aldgate, St Katherine by the Tower, Spitalfields, Tower of London, Old Tower Without, (all part of Whitechapel Division)

• Battersea and Clapham (a parliamentary borough of Surrrey)
  • Battersea Division: No.2, No.3 and part of No.4 wards of Battersea parish (part of Wandsworth District)
  • Clapham Division: No.1 ward and part of No.4 ward of Battersea parish, Clapham parish (parts of Wandsworth District)

with the rest of the Wandsworth District becoming a separate parliamentary borough of Wandsworth. Lozleader 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative county and "non-administrative" county

Researching something completely unrelated I stumbled across a chapter in Robson, W., The Government and Mis-government of London, (1939), which goes into some detail the provisions of the 1888 Act in relation to London. It explicitly states that the administrative county *did* include the City of London, but the "non-administrative" county did not, as the City was also a county for that purpose. A pleasing anomaly having an administrative county that was larger than its associated ceremonial county. MRSC (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Been a while! That's interesting. The City elected members to the LCC so it had to be somehow "involved". I think the situation is similar now with Greater London... I believe the 1963 Act defined Greater London as the London boroughs, The City and Temples, but of course it has its own shrievalty/lieutenancy. Lozleader (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It explains (at least to me!) why so many contemporary texts seem to use the lengthy name "the administrative county of London" i.e. the whole area. It does mirror the situation today with the Greater London lieutenancy smaller than then Greater London administrative area, and the inverse of what happens elsewhere in England. None of this would be necessary if the City had not resisted every attempt at reform. MRSC (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing and incomplete

Thank you much for your work, but the article is confusing and incomplete. 1- What is the meaning of the sentence "If you are looking for a London parish known primarily by a place name"? All geographical places are known by a place name! 2- My guess is that the names in the Successor(s) column are the boroughs, or whatever, of the newly established Greater London. 3- Missing is information on which civil parishes were included in each Metropolitan Borough in 1889. 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:507A:A38A:52DC:3D54 (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on County of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001021022/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10041790&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10041790&c_id=10001043

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)