[Bell Historians] Re: Counties

[John Camp]

At 20:43 on 06 August 2012, Tim Jackson wrote:

> Birmingham, Selly Oak: Warwickshire -> Worcestershire

This and the other Birmingham corrections are to be welcomed, though
they could stir up strong feelings.  There was considerable
correspondence here and on ringing-chat in 2008 about the correct county
designation of Selly Oak.  I got into deep trouble with some existing
and former locals by suggesting that it was never in Warwickshire.

It used to be in Worcestershire.  It became part of Birmingham.
Birmingham, as originally constituted, was geographically in
Warwickshire.  The boundaries of Birmingham, by then a county borough
and city, changed bit by bit, but this did not mean that the
geographical county of Warwickshire changed.  (The administrative county
of Warwickshire never encompassed Birmingham.) Selly Oak became part of
Birmingham in 1911, but was never geographically or administratively in
Warwickshire.  If a county location is needed, it is Worcestershire.
There are other similar examples in Tim Jackson's list.  The City of
Birmingham spreads over three (traditional) geographical counties:
Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire.

We've been here before.  I don't know whether I shall have any more luck
in persuading people this time round.

Whether there is any point in giving traditional counties for towers is
another matter.

John Camp