The same way Sunderland claimed it, when Tyne and Wear was formed.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Roker near Sunderland
- Thread starter pablo casals
- Start date
The same way Sunderland claimed it, when Tyne and Wear was formed.
Whitburn is nice and the only time it’s grey is when it’s raining.
Why didn't they get it then?
Fletch
Striker
It is mate , not sure would class it as Sunderland , possibly , but roker and seaburn are as much Sunderland as all the other estates
If I remember the post, was awhile back, it was because the town expanded too much so would've made Gateshead too big.
The original plan for Sunderland was it was going to stretch all the way down to Easington and include Seaham and Murton instead but they scrapped them and gave them Washington instead to balance the populations out.
Sounds a load of shite to be honest. Just made up codswallop
Believe whatever you want. I won't be losing sleep.
So you are saying washy was 'given' to sunderland by default? Sounds ridiculous
Tuono
Winger
One of my ancestors was born in Usworth in the 1800's, her address on her birth certificate is Usworth, Sunderland, Co Durham. Yet today Usworth is part of Washington. The local authority is Sunderland, the ward is Washington West, constituency is Washington and Sunderland West. Boundaries change all the time. Wasn't Sunderland originally just on the south side of the river.
It’s small things like this sort of a reverse pr if you like , far from the spin they put on all things Newcastle. I’ve said before regarding the back drop on tyne tees news there is no way the river tyne is that blue but its portrayed every night to the whole of the the north east as some sunny idyll. Feeds the arrogance as well.
I can't answer, but 100% Washington wasn't part of Sunderland and Seaham got scrapped out of it at the same time.
You must be logged on to see external links
- They're discussing it here in parliament where it got changed. Flicking through that it seems Washington, Birtley and Lamesley really didn't want to be part of it either and wanted to stick to County Durham. Seems like it was originally going to be called Tyneside aswell and not Tyne and Wear, which is just wrong.
Sgt Pepper
Striker
I believe it was just what is now the East End on the south of the river right at the port, while Bishopwearmouth was the place further west.
What do you mean by washington didn't want to be part of Sunderland? How do you know that?
You must be logged on to see external links
- Discusses it there, they wanted to stay part of Durham rather than join Tyne and Wear.
Last edited:
Who?
silva fox
Midfield
My birth certificate has Whitburn near Sunderland County Durham
That'll do for me
Washington Urban Council, it's pretty clear in the link.
Paddy O'Dors
Striker
Sunderland was gonna include Whitburn and Cleadon, but had to give them to South Tyneside so they'd have more 100k population and could be a metropolitan borough. This led to concerns that Sunderland would be too Labour dominated so Seaham etc was dropped and they picked up Houghton instead.
Thanks for that, I knew the Cleadon and Whitburn was population related for South Tyneside, Seaham wasn't 100% sure, but would make sense ignoring the cat in the pigeon that Houghton isn't exactly a Tory stronghold either.
So what are you trying to say here? That Washington isn't part of Sunderland cos a few fellas on a town council wanted to be in Durham?
