On May 11, 11:51*am, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,





1506 wrote:
On May 11, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:58:14 +0100

Graeme Wall wrote:
Indeed, California has counties into which one could fit several New
England states. *The state name 'New Hampshire' has always irritated
me. *I have no idea how said nomenclenture happened.

Some settler a few hundred years ago thought it reminded them of
hampshire. Fairly simple.

Wasn't it the Mayflower mob who left from (old) Hampshire?

No idea. Add an 's' on the end of settler then

B2003

More poor geagraphy. *Hampshire has now anexed Plymouth. *The
Mayflower (on the voyage in question) departed from Plymouth, and
landed at Plymouth Rock, MA.

They left from Plymouth on about the third attempt, having had to turn
back. *Their first attempt did leave the UK from Southampton, as Graeme
recalled, the settlers having originally come from Nottinghamshire via
the Netherlands (source: Dodgypedia).

Thank you, I know about the Dutch connection. I did not know about
the "real" port of origin. 1 up for his grayness.

On 11/05/2011 11:11, d wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:58:14 +0100
Graeme wrote:
Indeed, California has counties into which one could fit several New
England states. The state name 'New Hampshire' has always irritated
me. I have no idea how said nomenclenture happened.

Some settler a few hundred years ago thought it reminded them of
hampshire. Fairly simple.

Wasn't it the Mayflower mob who left from (old) Hampshire?

No idea. Add an 's' on the end of settler then


If it was the Mayflower mob, you can leave the s off, it would have been
Winthrop.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 11/05/2011 11:29, 1506 wrote:
On May 11, 11:11 am, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:58:14 +0100

Graeme wrote:
Indeed, California has counties into which one could fit several New
England states. The state name 'New Hampshire' has always irritated
me. I have no idea how said nomenclenture happened.

Some settler a few hundred years ago thought it reminded them of
hampshire. Fairly simple.

Wasn't it the Mayflower mob who left from (old) Hampshire?

No idea. Add an 's' on the end of settler then

B2003

More poor geagraphy. Hampshire has now anexed Plymouth. The
Mayflower (on the voyage in question) departed from Plymouth, and
landed at Plymouth Rock, MA.

That will be why the Mayflower monument is in Southampton then.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 11/05/2011 11:51, Nick Leverton wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On May 11, 11:11 am, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:58:14 +0100

Graeme wrote:
Indeed, California has counties into which one could fit several New
England states. The state name 'New Hampshire' has always irritated
me. I have no idea how said nomenclenture happened.

Some settler a few hundred years ago thought it reminded them of
hampshire. Fairly simple.

Wasn't it the Mayflower mob who left from (old) Hampshire?

No idea. Add an 's' on the end of settler then

B2003

More poor geagraphy. Hampshire has now anexed Plymouth. The
Mayflower (on the voyage in question) departed from Plymouth, and
landed at Plymouth Rock, MA.

They left from Plymouth on about the third attempt, having had to turn
back.

After problems with the second ship, the Speedwell. That one never got
a Pullman car named after it. (Dodgy attempt to get back on topic.)


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 11/05/2011 11:51, Nick Leverton wrote:

They left from Plymouth on about the third attempt, having had to turn
back. Their first attempt did leave the UK from Southampton, as Graeme
recalled, the settlers having originally come from Nottinghamshire via
the Netherlands (source: Dodgypedia).

They also left Immingham. Which is understandable, really.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 2011\05\11 22:10, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Peter Masson wrote:

"1506" wrote

If I told my neighbrs in Washoe County, Nevada that I grew up in
Buckinghamshire they would not relate that to a county, "Shire" is
obscure in North America. However, if I refered to Buckingham County,
England they would comprehend.

Which is strange, in that the office of sheriff (shire reeve) is far
more familiar in the USA (and in Scotland) than in England.

Ah, but how much reeving do they actually do? I rest my case.

The Japanese do the most reeving, especially on a jet prane.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Free Lunch wrote:
It may be smaller than some US counties, but no one thinks of the
(clearly misnamed) New Hampshire as a county.

Seems alright to me. The real problem round there is that the city of New
York isn't in the state of New Yorkshire.


"York, York, so good they named it twice ..."

No, it definitely doesn't sound as good. ;-)

On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Abigail Brady
wrote:

On May 11, 3:53Â*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
It is still in current use, e.g. in S.I.2009/776 [HIGHWAYS, ENGLAND
The Watford and South of St Albans—Redbourn—Kidney Wood, Luton,
Special Road Scheme 1957 (Variation) Scheme 2009]
THE SCHEDULE
The Route of the Special Road
From a point on the London-Aylesbury-Warwick-Birmingham Trunk Road
(A.41) near Watford in the County of Hertford.......

How curious. That particular case appears to be because it is
amending an 1957 enactment which is still in force, and so is using
the terms that were current in 1957 for consistency.

ITYF the form is also a normal choice (if not common) in documents
involving a high degree of formality such as deeds, charters etc.
including from 2010 :-
http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/PlanDocs/6...1/42052117.pdf
A planning obligation made between the Dean Trust and Dacorum Borough
Council ("Chipperfield in the County of Hertford").

On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:44:59 +0100, Chris Tolley
(ukonline really) wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:06:08 +0100, Chris Tolley
(ukonline really) wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

1506 wrote:

If I told my neighbrs in Washoe County, Nevada that I grew up in
Buckinghamshire they would not relate that to a county, "Shire" is
obscure in North America.

It briefly comes to the fore every four years at the start of the
Presidential race.

It may be smaller than some US counties, but no one thinks of the
(clearly misnamed) New Hampshire as a county.

Not suggesting they do, just suggesting that "shire", as relating to a
place is not obscure.

Why is it "clearly misnamed", BTW?

Because it's not just a county, it's a state.

At least it isn't New Yorkshire.

On 2011\05\12 02:30, Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:44:59 +0100, Chris
(ukonline really) wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:06:08 +0100, Chris
(ukonline really) wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

1506 wrote:

If I told my neighbrs in Washoe County, Nevada that I grew up in
Buckinghamshire they would not relate that to a county, "Shire" is
obscure in North America.

It briefly comes to the fore every four years at the start of the
Presidential race.

It may be smaller than some US counties, but no one thinks of the
(clearly misnamed) New Hampshire as a county.

Not suggesting they do, just suggesting that "shire", as relating to a
place is not obscure.

Why is it "clearly misnamed", BTW?

Because it's not just a county, it's a state.

At least it isn't New Yorkshire.

But it is New England!