Sussex is a ceramonial county but East Sussex and West Sussex are seperate lieutenancy areas! We have two LLs 
This, again, coming true.
I stand corrected. In that case, I’m not sure what the purpose of ceremonial counties are at all. They’re neither the actual historic geographical counties nor (in a few places) used for lieutenancy (i.e. ceremonial) purposes.
Where do you say they don’t match what you’d consider to be the real county they claim to be? They always seemed the most definitive county to me.
Taking a quick look at a map of the ceremonial counties and applying my limited knowledge of actual county boundaries, roughly from north to south:
- there’s a ceremonial ‘county’ called ‘Tyne and Wear’, when no such county exists;
- ditto for ‘Cumbria’, which appears to include elements of Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire, and Lancashire;
- the East Riding of Yorkshire has the wrong boundaries and the North and West Ridings are absent entirely;
- large parts of Lancashire are missing, including Furness, Manchester, and Liverpool;
- there’s one called ‘West Midlands’, which is a region, not a county;
- Huntingdonshire is missing, it along with Peterborough appear to be in ‘Cambridgeshire’;
- Middlesex is missing (‘Greater London’ is a metropolis spanning five or so counties, not a county);
- the county of Sussex is divided in two; and
- the Isle of Wight should be in Hampshire.
1 Like
Make Lancashire Palatine Again 
1 Like
Hey, leave my Isle of Wight alone! 
It can keep its unitary council, that’s none of my concern, but it’s in Hampshire.
1 Like
It’s not been part of Hampshire since 1890?
The other points are interesting, but further reading suggests the “Historic Counties” may hold more weight with you, as Middlesex lost a lot of land to London in 1888, and does out entirely in 1965.
Right, that’s you on the passport blacklist if you try to visit! 
I find this helps…
4 Likes
Haven’t clicked but I’m triggered. 
1 Like
The Map Men are glorious
5 Likes
Not being administered by Hampshire ‘County’ Council is not the same as not being part of Hampshire. The counties pre-date the councils that stole their names in the 1880s and are defined by natural boundaries (rivers, the watershed of the Pennines, etc.) rather than who is responsible for collecting the bins.
1 Like
So like the Solent?
Reading the history the isle has been separate since William the conquer & not included in the shire hundred of Hampshire (being split into east & west merdina
Maybe we could stick to talking about RAF Heraldic badges?
2 Likes
19F closed altogether after the war but came back as various DFs until the 70s when it got a new number. In the early 80s HQAC were convinced to renumber back to 19 but wouldn’t allow the F designation as the unit had closed - hence XIX
Yeah, and I think the F restrictions are silly. It’s harming the organisation’s history to punish an individual unit?
1 Like
i disagree - i am all for the F being dropped in the case that the unit was closed.
the F shows continuity for those 50 units. a low number already indicates it has a long legacy but F shows how long it has been going (ie from the beginning)
1 Like
Classic ship of Theseus issue.
There’s arguably a difference between bringing a unit back and preserving some legacy in terms of number, maybe designation, and perhaps badge and then regaining a moniker designed to specifically show it was an original unit that continued its existence.
2 Likes
I think there should be some clear tome on this the squadron number clearly shows the origin of the unit, why bother with the F in the first place. 201 Sqn RAF is older tha 50 Sqn RAF so even the raf don’t put a letter on their Squadrons. Of the 50 “F” squadron only 32 remain if they have run consecutively since the formation of the ADCC then they should it could be said they should retain the “F”. Ten of the early Squadrons have reformed and I think quite rightly there’s no “F”. On another point isn’t this thread about Heraldic Badges!!!