In the previous Genius thread I fear I may have tramped over drxx’s metatarsals once again.
I am very sorry if I gave offence a second time. I had no intention of doing so with what I thought was my self-confessedly tedious stuff about the legislative status of ceremonial geography, any more than I did previously apropos my personal view of the Telegraph in the Listener thread.
To be clear, drxx is entirely right about how the local terminology is used and how it matters both practically and as a matter of local identity. It also has a substantial history.
My deliberately legally pedantic contribution was intended only as a “well, what do you know: looked at from this weird but narrowly accurate perspective, the setter was arguably right” contribution. It was not meant as a criticism or contradiction of other views.
I thought I had signalled it as such but obviously not.