On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:14:19 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 19 July, 04:57, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:15:31 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On 18 July, 18:55, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.

This where someone usually pops up saying that the current boundaries
are just "administrative boundaries", implying that past
administrative boundaries somehow delimit real places in a different
way.

They are all administrative boundaries. *I tend to think that current
boundaries and authorities are the only ones worth worrying about,
because they are current.

Don't get a job dealing with land or associated legal documentation
where many of the related entities have not been "current" for many
years.-

Any relevant powers will have been delegated elsewhere though, surely.

No, the relevant "powers" are those of ownership of land. The land is
defined in the terms current at the time of registration so someone
still has to worry about the information.

Many legal documents will have been signed by people who are dead, but
it's no good asking dead people for authority to do anything.

The authority lives on.

As for place names, down my way a lot of stuff is named after St
John. Does this prove that he still exists?

philosophy mode on
Can you prove he does not ?
philosophy mode off