Why do some English Counties end in "shire", whilst others do not.

"Shires" were a comparatively late arrival on the English map: Early Saxon England was a patchwork of tribal kingdoms, each having its own king, royal family and consequent loyalties. At intervals, one or other of these kings managed to establish an uneasy supremacy over his neighbours, but such groupings were apt to dissolve on the death of its founder.

Over time, these groupings became more permanent, and "Island Empires" such as Wessex (Southern England) and Mercia (the Midlands) came into existence. These, however, were still arranged on the old tribal lines, often with petty princes still ruling the old tribal areas.

Following the first phase of the Viking wars, Alfred, king of Wessex, emerged as the supreme Saxon monarch and set about a wide-ranging reform of his kingdom to strengthen it against future attacks. Part of his strategy involved the final breakup of the old tribal loyalties - the ancient territories were superceded by a series of land-units based around a town.

These were the "shires" (Old English "scir" means roughly "something which is cared for"), presided over by a "sheriff" ("scir-gerefa":- care official).

Many shires were named from their central town, e.g. (Hampshire from Hamptun, now Southampton, Yorkshire from York, Oxfordshire from Oxford, etc.), although others took their names from local features (Berkshire was originally "berroc-scir", and incorporates an ancient Celtic place meaning "hilly").

Although Alfred's children, Edward and Aethelflaed, continued his policies (and the wars against the Northmen), the process was never brought to its logical conclusion, leaving a mixture of the old kingdoms and the new shires to form the basis of the modern counties.

Karl Wittwer, The English Companions, Maidstone, Kent.