You would never dream of calling Yorkshire "The Mid North", naming it
as seen from London. Rather it is called by it's own name for itself
"Yorkshire". And so it should. Why not our part of the country?

I seem to remember being told at a boarding school in York in the 50s
that it did used to be called "Northumberland and Durham", but the
name was changed to "North-East", because "they couldn't agree what it 

should be called and so the neutral name "North East" was chosen. To
say that the provincials can't agree among themselves and that
therefore London has had to step in to sort it out is a common ploy.

Can anybody confirm that it did indeed happen like that?

I see nothing wrong with "Northumbria" or "Northumberland and Durham". 

It would contrast nicely with "Cumbria" on the west side. We don't
call that "The North-West". That's somewhere different.

Michael Bell



--

"Michael Bell"  wrote in message 
news:8de3986d4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk...
> You would never dream of calling Yorkshire "The Mid North", naming it
> as seen from London. Rather it is called by it's own name for itself
> "Yorkshire". And so it should. Why not our part of the country?
>
> I seem to remember being told at a boarding school in York in the 50s
> that it did used to be called "Northumberland and Durham", but the
> name was changed to "North-East", because "they couldn't agree what it
>
> should be called and so the neutral name "North East" was chosen. To
> say that the provincials can't agree among themselves and that
> therefore London has had to step in to sort it out is a common ploy.
>
> Can anybody confirm that it did indeed happen like that?
>
> I see nothing wrong with "Northumbria" or "Northumberland and Durham".
>
> It would contrast nicely with "Cumbria" on the west side. We don't
> call that "The North-West". That's somewhere different.
>
> Michael Bell
>
>
>
> --

Miners refered to it as Northumberland and Durham

The message 
from "Eyan The Mackem \(oo\)"  contains these words:

> > Can anybody confirm that it did indeed happen like that?
> >
> > I see nothing wrong with "Northumbria" or "Northumberland and Durham".
> >
> > It would contrast nicely with "Cumbria" on the west side. We don't
> > call that "The North-West". That's somewhere different.
> >
> > Michael Bell


> Miners refered to it as Northumberland and Durham 

The term has been used to include those soft southerners in Yorkshire. 
To the best of my knowledge, the term "North East" as specifically
referring to Northumberland, Durham, and the unitary authorities in the
old Tyne & Wear conurbation - and Darlington - arose when Government
Office North East was established - they've got a separate one for
Yorkshire and Humberside.

If you say Northumberland and Durham, you miss out the cities and
metropolitan boroughs, and the coonclas don't like being missed out!  

Northumbria works for me, or "the historic counties of N & D"

Cheers

Gerry

-- 
Gerry Beldon FInstF
26-01 - the Consultants
phone : 0191 251 6720 =/= mobile : 07976 405721
http://www.26-01.com =/= gerry@26-01.com

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:25:22 GMT, Gerry Beldon  wrote:

>The message 
>from "Eyan The Mackem \(oo\)"  contains these words:
>
>> > Can anybody confirm that it did indeed happen like that?
>> >
>> > I see nothing wrong with "Northumbria" or "Northumberland and Durham".
>> >
>> > It would contrast nicely with "Cumbria" on the west side. We don't
>> > call that "The North-West". That's somewhere different.
>> >
>> > Michael Bell
>
>
>> Miners refered to it as Northumberland and Durham 
>
>The term has been used to include those soft southerners in Yorkshire. 
>To the best of my knowledge, the term "North East" as specifically
>referring to Northumberland, Durham, and the unitary authorities in the
>old Tyne & Wear conurbation - and Darlington - arose when Government
>Office North East was established - they've got a separate one for
>Yorkshire and Humberside.
>
>If you say Northumberland and Durham, you miss out the cities and
>metropolitan boroughs, and the coonclas don't like being missed out!  
>
>Northumbria works for me, or "the historic counties of N & D"
>
>Cheers
>
>Gerry

I couldn't give a shit either way.

Clyde

It's in the North East of England.

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:13:18 -0000, Charing Cross Station wrote:

> It's in the North East of England.

As opposed to the Westcountry, which mostly isn't West
-- 
Jim S
        Tyneside UK
     www.jimscott.co.uk

"Jim S"  wrote in message 
news:1xxxb9zrjefya.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net...
: On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:13:18 -0000, Charing Cross Station wrote:
:
: > It's in the North East of England.
:
: As opposed to the Westcountry, which mostly isn't West
: -- 
: Jim S
:        Tyneside UK
:     www.jimscott.co.uk

Exactly.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:18:46 GMT, Michael Bell
 wrote:

>You would never dream of calling Yorkshire "The Mid North", naming it
>as seen from London. Rather it is called by it's own name for itself
>"Yorkshire". And so it should. Why not our part of the country?
>
>I seem to remember being told at a boarding school in York in the 50s
>that it did used to be called "Northumberland and Durham", but the
>name was changed to "North-East", because "they couldn't agree what it 
>
>should be called and so the neutral name "North East" was chosen. To
>say that the provincials can't agree among themselves and that
>therefore London has had to step in to sort it out is a common ploy.
>
>Can anybody confirm that it did indeed happen like that?
>
>I see nothing wrong with "Northumbria" or "Northumberland and Durham". 
>
>It would contrast nicely with "Cumbria" on the west side. We don't
>call that "The North-West". That's somewhere different.
>
>Michael Bell

I've heard a Scotsman refer to our part of the world as the
Middle-East. 

I laughed, which was his intention. 

-- 

Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam

"Michael Bell"  wrote in message 
news:8de3986d4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk...
> You would never dream of calling Yorkshire "The Mid North", naming it
> as seen from London. Rather it is called by it's own name for itself
> "Yorkshire". And so it should. Why not our part of the country?
>
> I seem to remember being told at a boarding school in York in the 50s
> that it did used to be called "Northumberland and Durham", but the
> name was changed to "North-East", because "they couldn't agree what it
>
> should be called and so the neutral name "North East" was chosen. To
> say that the provincials can't agree among themselves and that
> therefore London has had to step in to sort it out is a common ploy.
>
> Can anybody confirm that it did indeed happen like that?
>
> I see nothing wrong with "Northumbria" or "Northumberland and Durham".
>
> It would contrast nicely with "Cumbria" on the west side. We don't
> call that "The North-West". That's somewhere different.

But it's common to refer to York as being in the North-East (but not Leeds!) 
and that obviously doesn't fit into Northumberland and Durham.

Besides after the council reorgansiations there are more than just the two 
(or three) counties to consider.

"Jim S"  wrote in message
news:l5uoupuqyli4.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net...

>
> So it's not surprising that the tourist area of Northumbria starts at -
> well - The Humber and stretches to Berwick.
>


But didn't Northumbria once stretch from the Humber to the Forth?

KeithC

"Keith Cunningham"  wrote in message 
news:t8-dnfw32etua4zVnZ2dnUVZ8tignZ2d@plusnet...
>
> "Jim S"  wrote in message
> news:l5uoupuqyli4.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net...
>
>>
>> So it's not surprising that the tourist area of Northumbria starts 
>> at -
>> well - The Humber and stretches to Berwick.
>>
>
>
> But didn't Northumbria once stretch from the Humber to the Forth?

Actually I think you may be right.  I think nowadays we think of Berwick 
as being the northern-most reach of the area, but according to this 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria, the Forth was, and it even 
mentions Northumbria's western boundary as the Mersey, which was news to 
me.

I quote - 'Northumbria was formed in central Great Britain in 
Anglo-Saxon times. At the beginning of the 7th century the two kingdoms 
of Bernicia and Deira were unified. (In the 12th century writings of 
Henry of Huntingdon the kingdom was defined as one of the Heptarchy of 
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.) At its greatest the kingdom extended at least 
from just south of the Humber, to the River Mersey and to the Forth 
(roughly, Sheffield to Runcorn to Edinburgh) - and there is some 
evidence that it may have been much greater (see map).' 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:11:51 +0700, "Nickel Arse"  wrote:

>
>"Keith Cunningham"  wrote in message 
>news:t8-dnfw32etua4zVnZ2dnUVZ8tignZ2d@plusnet...
>>
>> "Jim S"  wrote in message
>> news:l5uoupuqyli4.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net...
>>
>>>
>>> So it's not surprising that the tourist area of Northumbria starts 
>>> at -
>>> well - The Humber and stretches to Berwick.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But didn't Northumbria once stretch from the Humber to the Forth?
>
>Actually I think you may be right.  I think nowadays we think of Berwick 
>as being the northern-most reach of the area, but according to this 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria, the Forth was, and it even 
>mentions Northumbria's western boundary as the Mersey, which was news to 
>me.
>
>I quote - 'Northumbria was formed in central Great Britain in 
>Anglo-Saxon times. At the beginning of the 7th century the two kingdoms 
>of Bernicia and Deira were unified. (In the 12th century writings of 
>Henry of Huntingdon the kingdom was defined as one of the Heptarchy of 
>Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.) At its greatest the kingdom extended at least 
>from just south of the Humber, to the River Mersey and to the Forth 
>(roughly, Sheffield to Runcorn to Edinburgh) - and there is some 
>evidence that it may have been much greater (see map).' 

I see! Is this your most authoritative site? Do you have any other
sources you could draw upon to back-up your statement?

Jim.

"Jim"  wrote in message 
news:letd14l68691rfamsm75oiio68a1h0d1eu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:11:51 +0700, "Nickel Arse"  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Keith Cunningham"  wrote in message
>>news:t8-dnfw32etua4zVnZ2dnUVZ8tignZ2d@plusnet...
>>>
>>> "Jim S"  wrote in message
>>> news:l5uoupuqyli4.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it's not surprising that the tourist area of Northumbria starts
>>>> at -
>>>> well - The Humber and stretches to Berwick.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But didn't Northumbria once stretch from the Humber to the Forth?
>>
>>Actually I think you may be right.  I think nowadays we think of 
>>Berwick
>>as being the northern-most reach of the area, but according to this
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria, the Forth was, and it even
>>mentions Northumbria's western boundary as the Mersey, which was news 
>>to
>>me.
>>
>>I quote - 'Northumbria was formed in central Great Britain in
>>Anglo-Saxon times. At the beginning of the 7th century the two 
>>kingdoms
>>of Bernicia and Deira were unified. (In the 12th century writings of
>>Henry of Huntingdon the kingdom was defined as one of the Heptarchy of
>>Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.) At its greatest the kingdom extended at least
>>from just south of the Humber, to the River Mersey and to the Forth
>>(roughly, Sheffield to Runcorn to Edinburgh) - and there is some
>>evidence that it may have been much greater (see map).'
>
> I see! Is this your most authoritative site? Do you have any other
> sources you could draw upon to back-up your statement?


Ooooh!!!  Tetchy, aren't we?  You could try looking at this map, Mr 
Grumpy, and do your own research in future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Britain_peoples_circa_600.png 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Tom Thumb"  wrote in message 
news:7202e$481c6b8f$3344@news.teranews.com...
>
> "Jim"  wrote in message 
> news:letd14l68691rfamsm75oiio68a1h0d1eu@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:11:51 +0700, "Nickel Arse"  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Keith Cunningham"  wrote in message
>>>news:t8-dnfw32etua4zVnZ2dnUVZ8tignZ2d@plusnet...
>>>>
>>>> "Jim S"  wrote in message
>>>> news:l5uoupuqyli4.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's not surprising that the tourist area of Northumbria starts
>>>>> at -
>>>>> well - The Humber and stretches to Berwick.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But didn't Northumbria once stretch from the Humber to the Forth?
>>>
>>>Actually I think you may be right.  I think nowadays we think of 
>>>Berwick
>>>as being the northern-most reach of the area, but according to this
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria, the Forth was, and it even
>>>mentions Northumbria's western boundary as the Mersey, which was news 
>>>to
>>>me.
>>>
>>>I quote - 'Northumbria was formed in central Great Britain in
>>>Anglo-Saxon times. At the beginning of the 7th century the two 
>>>kingdoms
>>>of Bernicia and Deira were unified. (In the 12th century writings of
>>>Henry of Huntingdon the kingdom was defined as one of the Heptarchy 
>>>of
>>>Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.) At its greatest the kingdom extended at least
>>>from just south of the Humber, to the River Mersey and to the Forth
>>>(roughly, Sheffield to Runcorn to Edinburgh) - and there is some
>>>evidence that it may have been much greater (see map).'
>>
>> I see! Is this your most authoritative site? Do you have any other
>> sources you could draw upon to back-up your statement?
>
>
> Ooooh!!!  Tetchy, aren't we?  You could try looking at this map, Mr 
> Grumpy, and do your own research in future.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Britain_peoples_circa_600.png

I posted too soon.  There's another one here - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_kingdoms_c_800.svg

And this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:England-878ad.jpg  Note 
that that says 'Northumberland' not 'Northumbria'.

Sorry it's only from Wiki and not from some tedious academic website or 
tome. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **